Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (NO. 2) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered ; to be read the Third time.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Clause 24

FINE FOR OBSTRUCTING WORKS

Amendment made : In page 16, line 11, at end insert :
(iii) subject to the provisions of any bye-laws for the time being in force (including byelaws for the purpose of ensuring that Cumberland Basin Lock and Junction Lock Bridges are opened at times convenient to road traffic) and to the following provisions of this subsection the Corporation shall when and so far as is practicable permit noncommercial vessels of an overall height not exceeding 70 feet reckoned from water level and of a draught not exceeding 12 feet to enter into so much of the Floating Harbour as lies between Junction Lock and the speci-

fied line and shall also when and so far as is practicable (but without prejudice to section 28 (Relief from obligation to open Redcliff Bridge) of this Act) permit noncommercial vessels of an overall height not exceeding 11 feet reckoned from water level and of a draught not exceeding 6 feet 6 inches to enter into so much of the Floating Harbour as lies to the east of the specified line.
(iv) where under paragraph (iii) of this proviso non-commercial vessels of dimensions exceeding the prescribed dimensions are permitted to enter into any portion of the Floating Harbour such vessels shall enter into such portion and shall navigate and moor at such times, in such positions and in accordance with such reasonable terms and conditions as may be prescribed from time to time by the Corporation and the Corporation shall be under no obligation, whether statutory or otherwise, regarding the safety of such vessels, or of persons therein or thereon, or to carry out any works for the purpose of accommodation of such vessels.
(2) For the purposes of paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of the proviso to subsection (2) of this section—
'the specified line' means the line of the western side of the bridge to be constructed across the Floating Harbour in the vicinity of Jacobs Wells when the position of that bridge has been determined and until such time means the line of the Mardyke Ferry.
'non-commercial vessel' means any vessel employed in the service of Her Majesty, any vessel used for the purposes of nautical training and any yacht or launch (other than a yacht or launch used for the carriage, accommodation or entertainment of persons for hire or reward).—[Mr. Palmer.]

Bill to be read the Third time.

LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Bills read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Royal Naval Dockyards

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the latest position with regard to employment, average earnings and overtime working in Royal Naval Dockyards.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): The employment position remains as forecast in the Defence White Paper of 1969, The average earnings of adult males during a typical week in June was £30·03 per week including 2·1 hours of overtime.

Mr. Judd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety in the dockyards at reports that more work is being put out to private contract when job opportunities are falling in the yards? Is he further aware that, because of the deplorably low level of earnings for many of these working men in the yards, there is no hope of their taking home anything near a living wage unless there are reasonable prospects for overtime, which are being cut back every day?

Mr. Kirk: We have put one submarine out to contract. Nothing else is planned to go out to contract at the moment. In relation to the absence of overtime. there is a problem about the balance of trades and I am discussing this with the trade unions. I hope that we shall be able to resolve it satisfactorily.

Mr. John Morris: Why was this submarine put out to contract? Was there consultation with the unions in the dockyards before it was done? Is not one of the problems of putting refits out to contract the difficulty in advance of estimating the work to be done and the pricing?

Mr. Kirk: I had full consultation with the trade unions before the submarine was put out to contract, and I kept them informed. There was no way in which we could accommodate this vessel in the Royal Dockyards. The problem was

once more that of the balance of trades, which has been one of the great difficulties of the yards. I am not wholly satisfied with the way things are, but I am doing the best I can to rectify the situation.

Royal Air Force, Orfordness

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many persons are employed at Royal Air Force, Orfordness ; and what percentage there are of each nationality.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Antony Lambton): The figure is 386. Of these, 32·5 per cent. are United States nationals, and the remainder are of United Kingdom nationality.

Mr. Stoddart: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his answer may well cause resentment in that, to accommodate foreign nationals, military or security personnel, local inhabitants have been told to keep away, local fishermen have been warned not to go within three miles of the establishment lest they get electric shocks, and overflying of the establishment is prohibited? Would he like to comment on this matter?

Mr. Lambton: No, Sir.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of State for Defence why special facilities were granted on an exclusive basis to theDaily Telegraph, to photograph Royal Air Force Station, Orfordness, after the issue of the D-notice ; and if he will grant similar facilities to all other national newspapers.

Mr. Lambton: No special facilities were granted to the Daily Telegraph, nor is there a D-notice applying specifically to Royal Air Force, Orfordness. The photographs in question, which were taken entirely on the initiative of the Daily Telegraph, were submitted to my Department for security clearance in the normal way. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Jenkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if, there is vagueness about an area covered by a D-notice, there is a tendency for that area to spread beyond the area absolutely necessary for national security? Will he be ready to define, not, of course, what is covered by


this D-notice, but what is not covered by it, so that the rest of the national Press will be as well informed as the Daily Telegraph?

Mr. Lambton: I think the Press have been quite openly dealt with on this matter. There is no specific D-notice applying to Orfordness. The station is covered by the terms of the general D-notice relating to photography at all military establishments. The Daily Telegraph observed the provisions of this D-notice.

N.A.T.O. European Defence Improvement Programme

Mr. Roderick: asked the Minister of State for Defence what new form of military arrangement in Western Europe he envisages requiring higher expenditure by West European countries under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): The European Defence Improvement Programme does not involve any new form of military arrangement.

Mr. Roderick: When does the Minister propose to announce to the House the plans outlined in his speech in Munich on 20th February regarding the European Defence Improvement Programme?

Lord Balniel: They have already been announced on 17th December, 1970, and in further detail on 17th February, 1971.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is his estimate of the approximate amount of expenditure that will be incurred by the British Government over the next five years as their share of the European Defence Improvement Programme of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Russell Kerr: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he expects the increased combined military expenditure of West European nations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme to be met by other such West European nations, increasing their percentage gross

national product military costs to the level of those in the United Kingdom or whether he expects all such West European countries to expend a greater percentage of their gross national product upon military projects.

Mr. Booth: asked the Minister of State for Defence by how much the United Kingdom military budget will increase on the basis that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme is implemented.

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Minister of State for Defence by how much he estimates expenditure by Great Britain will increase in the next five years under the European Defence Improvement Programme.

Mr. Latham: asked the Minister of State for Defence to what extent he estimates the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme wil linvolve extra expenditure by Great Britain over the next five years.

Lord Balniel: The 1971–72 Estimates together with the published Defence Budget targets for the following three years make appropriate provision for Her Majesty's Government's contribution to the European Defence Improvement Programme. This has been valued at some £76·5 million over the first five years of the programme. It is not for me to say how our allies are financing their contributions, although I must emphasise that this programme represents an increase in the military capability of the alliance.

Mr. Allaun: Did not the noble Lord say in Munich that this programme would cost N.A.T.O. an extra one billion dollars over the next five years alone, and also that Europe would have to take an ever-increasing share of the burden? Is increasing expenditure to this extent a sensible way to secure East-West troop force reductions, if one wants them, as, presumably, the Government do?

Lord Balniel: I announced that the total European Defence Improvement Programme amounted to £175 million over the next five years. I am talking of pounds at the moment. This has been agreed by all the European members. I think that, till such time as one can


achieve a balanced reduction of forces in Europe, it would be very unwise for Western Europe to lower its defences.

Mr. Kerr: Is the noble Lord aware that this country is spending about 50 per cent. more of its gross national product on so-called defence? Does he not agree that it is time that this "umbrella, spats and no-breakfast" approach to defence matters came to an end?

Lord Balniel: We are spending around 5½ per cent. of our gross national product on defence, and this is money which is preserving the freedom of the Western world, and I think it is money very well spent.

Mr. Booth: Will the Minister tell the House to what extent Great Britain is involved in the increased contribution to the N.A.T.O. infrastructure programme as a result of our participation in this defence improvement programme?

Lord Balniel: Yes. The total United Kingdom contribution amounts to £76½ million, which is just under 19½ per cent. of the total planned expenditure.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is vital that we should spend this money in Western Europe and, indeed, increase our percentage of expenditure on the security of Western Europe, and would he not agree that there still remains a fair amount of work to be done and money to be spent in bringing our defences in Western Europe up to the standard we require to resist any possible aggression from behind the Iron Curtain?

Lord Balniel: Yes. This money will be largely spent on the hardening of airfields and the protection of aircraft, as is already undertaken on the other side, in the Warsaw Pact. The remainder of the expenditure will be to improve the communications system which is very necessary for Western defence.

Mr. Kerr: Twenty years out of date.

Mr. Stoddart: Could the Minister say what criterion is used for the sharing of this burden between the European group of the N.A.T.O. Powers?

Lord Balniel: It is the criterion of N.A.T.O. defence expenditure burden

sharing which has been in force, I think, since the inception of N.A.T.O. itself.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the programme of hardening airfields in particular is essential, because N.A.T.O. is a defensive alliance and must, therefore, face the first strike, so that it is particularly important that we should have aircraft secure on hardened airfields?

Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend has pointed to the main tactical and strategic reasons which have led the Government and other European members of N.A.T.O. to this decision.

Mr. Latham: Would the Minister confirm that in his Munich speech he made reference to a figure of one billion American dollars, and that he further said that this referred only to two defence projects, and that he subsequently described such expenditure as a small start in the process of burden sharing? Would he indicate what share is likely to be the burden on the British taxpayer of that one billion United States dollars, indicate to the House whether he was talking in terms of an American billion or a British billion, and give the sterling equivalent?

Lord Balniel: As I have already done the House the courtesy of laying my speech in the Library of the House, I am sure that the House will be able to see whether the statement which the hon. Member has read is correct, but it remains my view that as Europe achieves greater strength it is incumbent on Europe to play a greater part in her share of defence and not leave the overwhelming proportion of her defence on the shoulders of our American allies.

Mr. George Thomson: While strongly endorsing what my hon. Friends have said about the importance of pressing on with balanced force reductions and about the importance of a fair share of the expenditure between one European ally and another, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that one of the advantages of the European defence improvement programme is that, by protecting our aircraft, it raises the nuclear threshold, and, therefore, in the event of an emergency, gives a much better chance of a peaceful resolution of that


emergency without recourse to nuclear weapons?

Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very valid point. Going hand in hand with the proposals for the increased defence posture of the Western world is our desire to achieve balanced force reductions with the Warsaw Pact, and these two things are together very prominent in the policies which have been followed by N.A.T.O.

Mr. Crawshaw: Will the noble Lord agree that the Soviet Union is continuing to spend an increased amount of money on military expenditure each year, and that, even with this small amount of added expenditure, the Soviet Union will have a preponderance still in all types of weapons, and would not my hon. Friend's efforts be better directed to persuading the Soviet Union to cut down its expenditure?

Mr. Kerr: Get a European security conference.

Lord Balniel: I agree that expenditure in the Warsaw Pact on military equipment is increasing, and that this is a factor which we have to take into account. On the other hand, the Soviet leaders' response in relation to the initiative for balanced force reductions has been the first positive response which has been made, and I think that we would be right to follow it up vigorously with exploratory talks.

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to his policy towards expenditure on armaments by the Western European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Lord Balniel: I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) on 17th December, 1970 and 17th February respectively.—[Vol. 808, c. 406–7; Vol. 811, c. 504–5.]

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for his extremely helpful reply, but will he tell us what are his views on the future prospects of armaments within an enlarged E.E.C.?

Lord Balniel: I believe that, if one can achieve a greater economic strength in Europe as the result of entry into the E.E.C., that will contribute to the influence which Europe can wield in the world and, therefore, to the strength of its defence arrangements.

Mr. Adley: Will my noble Friend say whether there has been a noticeable change in the view of the French towards N.A.T.O. in the last few weeks or months?

Lord Balniel: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Moyle: As the White Paper on British membership of the E.E.C. speaks of increased security if Britain joins the E.E.C., will the noble Lord tell the House what extra commitments in men, money and materials we intend to make to the defence of Western Europe on our accession to the Community, if we accede?

Lord Balniel: My answer to some extent echoes the words of the White Paper. I believe that greater political unity and greater economic unity will lead to a greater defence strength, and this is one of the factors which leads one to believe that the advantage lies with entry into the E.E.C.

Computer Systems

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of State for Defence what computer systems are in use or planned in his Department for pay, personnel, maintenance supplies and general administration ; and whether he will make a statement.

Lord Balniel: I refer the hon. Member to Annex A to the Ministry of Defence Supplementary Memorandum of Evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology (sub-Committee A), and the Minutes of Evidence for Wednesday, 31st March, 1971. Current plans provide for the replacement of older computers and the enhancement of their systems where appropriate.

Mr. Huckfield: While I am grateful to the noble Lord for the elucidation of that matter, may I ask whether he has seen a report that the American Department of Defence has been using its computerised systems for the collection and maintenance of personal and political


files on large numbers of individuals, and would the Minister give a categorical assurance to the House that nothing of this sort is happening in this country?

Lord Balniel: I take note of the point made by the hon. Member. The rules of confidentiality observed by the Ministry of Defence are designed to ensure that no unauthorised person has access to personal information stored in our computer files.

Gunnery Range, Shoeburyness

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of cost of the proposed transfer of the Shoeburyness gunnery range to South-West Scotland.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): We estimate that the cost of reproviding, at West Freugh, the facilities which it is hoped to move to that area from Shoeburyness will be not less than £20 million. Until plans are further advanced it is not possible to estimate what additional cost would be involved in reproviding elsewhere some defence facilities at present at West Freugh.

Mr. Buchanan: From the Minister's answer it is obvious that this cost does not include in the transfer of the R.A.F. unit the demolition of buildings. Is he aware that the transfer will ruin an area of great natural beauty and before taking a final decision will he make a cost-benefit analysis of the transfer?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it will ruin an area of great natural beauty, because there are already range facilities there. We have gone into this very thoroughly and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of local organisations are in favour of this move.

Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the R.A.F., while having no home as does a county regiment, is very much at home in Wigtownshire and has been for many years? In the last 10 years I have never had a single complaint about the R.A.F. bombing at West Freugh, and if the R.A.F. could provide 100 more jobs, we would put up with many more bangs not to have the guns.

Mr. Gilmour: I am sure my hon. Friend is right in what he says about

friendship with the R.A.F. but, as he knows, other considerations arise here.

Mr. George Thomson: Is the Minister aware that, having served in the R.A.F. at West Freugh, I endorse all that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) said? Is he further aware that local opinion about this proposal is deeply and evenly divided, and should not there be a full public inquiry?

Mr. Gilmour: This is a matter which arises directly under Question No. 15.

Nuclear Weapons (Servicing of Vessels)

Mr. Latham: asked the Minister of State for Defence what facilities are available in Great Britain to other European powers for the servicing of vessels carrying nuclear weapons.

Lord Balniel: No request for servicing facilities for such vessels has ever been received from another European power.

Mr. Latham: The Question does not ask whether any application has been received ; it asks what facilities are available. Does the Minister realise that what gives rise to this Question is the possible implication of any defence arrangements that may be secretly made in connection with E.E.C., the existence of a French nuclear weapon-carrying submarine and the fact that the American submarine Poseidon is being serviced at Holy Loch without any announcement being made to the House of Commons? There is, therefore, an understandable fear that similar facilities might be granted to a European Power without the House of Commons being informed.

Lord Balniel: There is nothing to add to the Prime Minister's statement in answer to Questions on 24th May, when he made it clear that there were no discussions of any kind on Anglo-French nuclear arrangements during talks with the only other nuclear Power in Europe.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend agree that, should a request come from any European nuclear Power, we should accede to it with the greatest alacrity?

Lord Balniel: This is a hypothetical question. Any such request would, of course, be considered on its merits

Ministry Building (Planning Approvals)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will introduce legislation whereby all Ministry of Defence buildings have to be approved by the planning department of the appropriate local authority.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): No, Sir.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my hon. Friend see whether the procedure might be improved? Is he aware that the submission by courtesy to the local authority of the Army's plans is no satisfactory alternative? Is there any practical or strategic reason why plans should not be submitted by the Army as they are by any private individual or commercial body?

Mr. Johnson Smith: The arrangements under which we operate under the Circular 100 procedure have caused general satisfaction over the years. If my hon. Friend is dissatisfied with this arrangement, I suggest that he gets in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Northern Ireland (Border Surveillance)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the military surveillance on the border between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

Mr. Johnson Smith: Both the land border and the coastline of Northern Ireland are patrolled by the security forces to prevent the smuggling of arms and ammunition and any other illegal traffic which would jeopardise the security of the Province, but studies of methods of improving control of the border are in hand.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend recall the case of the seriously wounded I.R.A. gunman who was carried across the border only to die in the South? Does not this case and the many other cases which are brought to notice reveal that there is not a very extensive search of persons and vehicles, and is there any improvement in this regard?

Mr. Johnson Smith: As I have said, we are studying ways of improving the methods of surveillance of the border, but my hon. Friend will, I am sure, bear in mind that this is a very difficult task. There are over 300 miles of border and a great many roads, and we cannot seal off the border without a tremendous amount of effort at enormous cost.

Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is becoming an intolerable scandal that the Irish Republic, reputedly a friendly Power, is allowing its territory to be used constantly for training and refuge by people who are shooting our soldiers in the back? Will my hon. Friend say what arrangements there are between the security forces on either side to see that this is brought to an end?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I know that my hon. and gallant Friend takes a close interest in these matters, which I respect, but I am sure he will understand that it would not be in the interests of security to disclose specific measures under consideration or already in force. Of course, we naturally welcome co-operation with the Republic.

Mr. Walden: I thank the Minister for what he said but, in view of the nature of the questions being asked and the Minister's replies, what we should like to know is when this situation is going to end. The Army is doing a marvellous job, but its resources are strained by being there and it makes it difficult in Rhine Army. It begins to look as if the Army are there as a permanent garrison and that there will never be any political settlement. Can the Minister give us any guidance whether the Army is getting on top of the situation and whether any political arrangement will be made that can bring the Army out?

Mr. Johnson Smith: This is a very wide question which goes beyond my brief, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I have not a crystal ball, and I would mistrust looking at one anyway, but I am confident that the Army is capable of discharging its duties with a professionalism which is second to none. I do not find people's confidence being at all diminished in the ability of the Army to discharge those duties ; on the contrary, I think there is enhanced confidence.

Experimental Gun Firing (West Freugh)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the experimental gun firing undertaken recently in the West Freugh area of Scotland and what were the local reactions thereto.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Demonstration firings took place on 24th and 25th June at the request of the Wigtownshire County Council. There was some unfavourable local comment.

Mr. Hannan: To use a colloquialism, the Minister can say that again. In view of the acute differences in the county council and the overwhelming opposition in the local community in respect of the noise nuisance, and also bearing in mind the negligible value of this project—a project which apparently is unwanted elsewhere in the United Kingdom—for employment purposes in Scotland, will the Minister give an assurence that he will not take a decision until a public inquiry is held?

Mr. Gilmour: In reply to the last part of the question, it will be for my right hon. Friend, in the light of the representations which have been made, to decide whether there should be a public inquiry. On the earlier part of the question, it is not true to say that local opposition is overwhelming. Wigtownshire trade unionists are in favour of the move because there will be more than 600 permanent jobs for civilians available at the range ; other bodies have indicated support for the proposal, including the South-West Scotland Tourist Association, the Stranraer and District Chamber of Trade and the Stranraer Town Council ; and the Wigtownshire County Council has also accepted the proposal.

Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the organisations which he has mentioned are mostly out of the sound of the guns and that I have a large file of letters which I shall be sending him shortly? I only wish that I could send him all the telephone calls I have received on this matter.

Mr. Gilmour: I shall be interested to receive all the information my hon. Friend has at his disposal.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that, if this is the best the Government can do to solve the unemployment situation in Scotland, the people of Scotland will want no part in it? Will he now hold a public inquiry to prove conclusively what we are saying?

Mr. Gilmour: As was made clear in an earlier debate, this is not the principal measure we have for dealing with unemployment in Scotland. I do not think the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) is immediately concerned in this area, and therefore I do not feel that he speaks for the workers in it.

Mr. John Morris: Was not the answer given by the Minister to the question about the need for a public inquiry absolutely pathetic? If there are local anxieties and fears, is it not incumbent on the Government at the earliest possible moment to announce a public inquiry? Will the hon. Gentleman recall that when there were similar difficulties in South Wales the Labour Government announced a public inquiry at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to my earlier reply, when I said that it would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide on this point.

Mr. William Hamilton: That is what worries us.

Beira Patrol

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of State for Defence what estimate he has of the number of oil tankers which in the last three months have been prevented from delivering oil by the ships and aircraft of the Beira Patrol.

Mr. Kirk: No oil for Rhodesia has passed through Beira. All the tankers which would otherwise have been delivering such oil have obviously been deterred from doing so.

Mr. King: Would my hon. Friend accept that, misconceived as is the whole sanctions policy, there might be some conceivable logic in it if everyone were to join in? Within a week in which Zambia has announced that she is


increasing her trade with Rhodesia, could my hon. Friend tell the House why Britain alone should bear the costs of this phantom patrol, which stops nothing? Does he realise that this has been going on for six long years and is it not time he assured the House that, whether or not agreement is reached with Rhodesia, this particular waste of money will cease?

Mr. Kirk: As I have told my hon. Friend more than once, the question whether the patrol goes on is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend. Secondly, as I have told the House more than once, this is an obligation laid upon us by the Security Council of the United Nations.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that every national and international law-breaker will be delighted with the philosophy of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) that if we cannot catch them all we should never make any attempt to catch any?

Mr. Kirk: I would only say that we have prevented oil going through the port of Beira, which was the obligation laid on the Royal Navy.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of State for Defence what has been the total cost to the country of maintaining the Beira patrol since 9th April, 1966 ; how many tankers have been intercepted ; how many have been diverted from Beira, and how many have continued on their way to that port ; in how many cases has an attempt been made to use force, and in how many cases has it been successful ; and what has been the effect of this patrol on the supply of oil and petrol to Rhodesia.

Mr. Kirk: The extra cost is about £2¼ million. About 50 tankers have been stopped since April, 1966 and after inquiries all have been allowed to proceed. I cannot say how often force has been attempted, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the patrol has been successful in that no oil for Rhodesia has passed through Beira. This illegal régime has been denied the cheapest and most direct method of importing oil.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that petrol in Rhodesia is now not only unrationed but cheaper than in London, and in view of the fact that

Foreign Office Ministers now accept that this particular method of carrying out the Security Council Resolution is not a requirement on this country, cannot my hon. Friend find better methods of utilising taxpayers' money and the matchless loyalty and discipline of the Royal Navy?

Mr. Kirk: I do not accept that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made statements in that regard—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On 21st June.

Mr. Kirk: I have studied the statement on 21st June. All that the Royal Navy is required to do is to prevent tankers from going into the Port of Beira, and that it has done.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it obnoxious that the most loyal supporters of the Crown are seeking to support and encourage an illegal régime in rebellion against the Crown?

Mr. Kirk: I never make comparisons, odious or otherwise.

Harrier Aircraft (Ship Trials)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of State for Defence what estimate he has now made of Harrier trials on the "Ark Royal".

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent trials of Harrier aircraft of the Royal Air Force embarked upon H.M.S. "Ark Royal" ; and what new assessment he has made as a result of the capability of the Royal Air Force to conduct air operations in support of the Fleet.

Mr. Kirk: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 17th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 122–3.]

Mr. Dalyell: What Harrier programme is now envisaged?

Mr. Kirk: We are evaluating the results of the "Ark Royal" trials, and in the light of those we shall take our decision on any maritime use of the Harrier.

Mr. Wilkinson: Do not recent events in the Mediterranean and the marked political instability in that area show


the need for integral air cover for the Fleet? If that is the case, is it not about time that my hon. Friends got on with the task of providing such cover because, without it, many experts on this side of the House agree, as do naval friends, that the Fleet will be virtually defenceless in face of hostile air attack?

Mr. Kirk: Experts on both sides of the House disagree on this sort of matter. I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish us to embark on a major spending programme until we have evaluated the results of the trials.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Would my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the military considerations, it is desirable to increase as quickly as possible our exports of this remarkable aircraft, and can he say when the Ministry will begin to reach a conclusion after some 10 years of trials?

Mr. Kirk: We are all in favour of increasing exports of military potential.

Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the progress of the multi-rôle combat aircraft programme.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: In accordance with arrangements agreed last year, we are now, with our partners, engaged in a review of progress of the development programme.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend ensure that external political pressures are not brought to bear on this project which is of such vital military, industrial and technical significance for British and European defences ; and will he assure the House that the purchase by the Luftwaffe of 200 F4 Phantoms in no way changes its intention to buy a significant number of M.R.CAs.?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not quite know what my hon. Friend means by "external political pressures", but this programme is extremely important. There is no reason to believe that the German Air Force has changed its mind about this programme.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not the estimated unit cost of the M.R.C.A. now above £3 million?

Mr. Gilmour: Any costs which have been estimated apply only to the early development phase, so that information is not available.

Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of State for Defence how much of the £4·5 million loan to Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited has been taken up.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The figure is £3·7 million.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister concede that the mere granting of this loan has had a salutary effect in saving this portion of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders? Will he not prevail on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to be as generous, if not more so, in saving the whole of the consortium?

Mr. Gilmour: The loan to Yarrow was extremely valuable, and it is my understanding that over the years a great deal more money has been lent or given to U.C.S. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not a matter for me.

Mr. John Morris: I also welcome the fact that money has been injected into Yarrows, which is a first-class shipbuilding yard. However, is it not a rather odd arrangement that the Ministry of Defence is injecting the money rather than the Treasury? In view of the fact that the Government, like Ceasar's wife, must be above suspicion, how will the hon. Gentleman satisfy other shipbuilders in other parts of the country that they will have a fair crack of the whip?

Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that other shipbuilders in other parts of the country have complete confidence in our fairness.

Malta

Mr. Dixon: asked the Minister of State for Defence what was the total amount of defence expenditure and overseas aid in Malta in 1970 ; what estimate has been supplied to him of the money spent by personnel of Her Majesty's forces in Malta in 1970 ; and what he estimates to be the total expenditure under these three headings in 1971 on the assumption that the Government of Malta does not


abrogate its defence agreement with the United Kingdom.

Lord Balniel: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, arrange for it to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dixon: Will my right hon. Friend agree that most hon. Members deplore the gross discourtesy displayed by Mr. Mintoff in unilaterally cancelling the visit to Malta last night of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence? Now that Mr. Mintoff has abrogated unilaterally our defence agreement with him, and since Malta is now virtually of no military value at all, should not we immediately cancel all overseas aid to that country?

Lord Balniel: As my hon. Friend raises the wider issue of the 1964 Agreement on financial assistance, and as a statement is to be made later today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, I ask my hon. Friend to await that statement.

Following is the information :



Financial years



1970–71£m
1970–72£m


Local defence expenditure other than personal spending*
1·2
1·9


Personal spending†
12·7
10·6


Overseas aid under the 1964 Agreement on Financial Assistance‡
11·2
5·0


* Defined as in Annex B, Table 6, of Cmnd. 4592.


† Including cost of locally engaged personnel, and net of receipts from N.A.A.F.I., etc.


‡ Seventy-five per cent. grant and 25 per cent. loan in each year. The figures exclude £27,000 technical assistance in each year. The Agreement on Financial Assistance was published as Cmnd. 3111.

Officers (Recruitment)

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the present shortfall of Regular officers in each of the three Services.

Lord Balniel: The shortfalls of male trained officers at 1st April 1971 were as follows :


Royal Navy and Royal Marines
349


Army
90


Royal Air Force
149

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Are not the figures that my right hon. Friend has

just given a significant indication of a very serious situation, especially in the Royal Navy? Can my right hon. Friend say what plans his Department has for dealing with the situation?

Lord Balniel: The size of the Navy shortfall reflects the low level of recruitment resulting from the policies pursued by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. I am glad to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that, during the first six months of 1971, applications for the Royal Navy were 50 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period last year.

Mr. Ashton: Is not that due to unemployment among young white-collar workers and school leavers who see no employment opportunities other than joining the Forces?

Lord Balniel: I think that the main reason is that, throughout the country, it is now realised that in joining the Services of the Crown, there is a future for people under the present Government. The improved recruiting is not confined to the Royal Navy. Applications for entry into the Army increased by 31 per cent. in the first six months of this year, and the number of applications for the Air Force rose by 72 per cent.

Sir H. Harrison: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that increased numbers of young men electing to take commissions in the Services reflect their confidence in this Government?

Lord Balniel: They have confidence in this Government. They also have confidence that they have before them a career which is immensely worth while and one which is held in the highest respect throughout the community.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the traditional alternatives offered to the Scottish people by his Administration and their predecessors have been the Labour Exchange and the recruiting office? Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is because of high unemployment that he is getting his recruits?

Lord Balniel: In view of the shortfall two years ago, which was almost of drastic seriousness to the country, I think that there will be overwhelming support


for and pleasure in the fact that recruitment to the Services is now increasing.

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Reverting to the original Question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the present increase in the numbers of young men taking short service commissions in the Army is extremely satisfactory?

Lord Balniel: My hon. and gallant Friend echoes the views that I have been expressing myself.

Mr. George Thomson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the welcome improvement in recruiting figures is due directly to the military salary introduced by the previous Administration and that, in so far as recruiting has improved, it must be because this Government have now adopted the defence budget and the defence policies of their predecessors?

Lord Balniel: Why complain, if that is the case? Certainly I concede that the introduction of a military salary has been of value in encouraging people to join the Services.

Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister. Mr. William Hamilton.

Mr. William Hamilton: rose—

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. I do not think that the clock yet says a quarter-past three.

Mr. Speaker: It is for me to judge the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Ql. Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to pay an official visit to Malta.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no plans to do so. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be making a statement after Questions about recent exchanges between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malta.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Prime Minister think that the defence facilities on Malta are of sufficient importance both to this country and to N.A.T.O. to warrant either the right hon. Gentleman himself going to Malta or his inviting the new Maltese Prime Minister to this coun-

try for the purpose of discussing these matters?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman awaits the statement which is to be made later by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, he will learn that, as has been generally published in the Press, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was about to go to Malta. I have myself invited the Prime Minister of Malta to come here.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a luncheon of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce in London on 23rd June on the economy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Duffy: Does not the Prime Minister agree that, unlike then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer now has substantial grounds for introducing a modest package of reflationary measures, and that all the up-to-date information in his possession confirms the picture of stagnation in current expenditure and investment? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that there is an overwhelming need for a stimulus to the national economy within a matter of weeks and not months?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the House that he is reviewing the forecast and that he will give the House his views in due course. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As, on that occasion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no statement about how and when the Government intended to cut the rise in prices "at a stroke", can the Prime Minister tell us when it will happen? It is now more than 12 months since the right hon. Gentleman made that statement or caused it to be issued from the Tory Central Office.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had been present in the House and


listened to the debates, he would have known that the action of the Government, including halving S.E.T. and limiting nationalised industries' prices, has carried out that policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ABSENCE FROM LONDON)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister what provisions he has made for the exercise of his responsibilities during his absence at sea during the last week in July and the first week in August, 1971.

The Prime Minister: The usual provisions, Sir. But if the hon. Gentleman is expecting me to be out of London throughout the period, he will find himself, as usual, much mistaken.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, if he is unable to lead the British team in the Admiral's Cup, a Mr. Sampson will be in charge? While many of us will wish him success, some of us must be sceptical about the prospects of any Sampson performance that is played solo. Does the Prime Minister realise that, while he has been playing at this rich man's sport for the past 12 months, millions of ordinary working-class people have been having their sails trimmed by this reactionary Government?

The Prime Minister: I have been asked to captain the Admiral's Cup team and I intend to do so. My only comment is that the hon. Gentleman appears to have a rather strange way of wishing one success.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Can my right hon. Friend throw some light on what is bugging the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the Prime Minister's nautical activities? Is it the fact that my right hon. Friend sails or the fact that he wins?

The Prime Minister: I will not claim to fathom the workings of the hon. Gentleman's mind, if that is what he possesses. The hon. Gentleman claims to be a sportsman both in tennis and in cricket. It might be to the benefit of the House as well as of himself if he devoted more attention to those games.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. EUROPEAN DEFENCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. Booth: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community, he will discuss with the Heads of Government of the European Economic Community countries the development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme.

The Prime Minister: I would of course undertake any consultations which might be necessary with other leaders within an enlarged Community ; but the European Defence Improvement Programme was the result of agreement last December between the European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and is not a matter for the Community.

Mr. Booth: In that case will the Prime Minister assure the House that if any Minister makes any future statement abroad regarding a development in the European Defence Improvement Programme during the period of his Administration, that statement will be reported to the House? Will he further assure the House that Members will have an opportunity to question such a statement, irrespective of whether the Minister making it is a Member of this House?

The Prime Minister: The full details of our contribution to the European Defence Improvement Programme were given to the House. It is natural for Ministers making speeches elsewhere to comment on this matter in a defence context. I see nothing unusual or wrong in that. The House has been informed about the agreement which was reached. Indeed, it was mentioned in the defence debates.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEACHERS (CAREER STRUCTURES)

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Prime Minister which Department has a responsibility for considering career structures in the teaching profession.

The Prime Minister: Departmental responsibility for career structures, in so far as they are an aspect of teachers' pay, rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.


Her Department is associated with the local education authorities, who employ the teachers, on the three statutory negotiating bodies.
The arrangements are broadly similar in Scotland, where departmental responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that delegations of teachers wishing to discuss this matter have been told by the Department of Education and Science that it is the responsibility of the Department of Employment and that, when they have gone to the Department of Employment, they have been told that it is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science? Will he make absolutely certain that his Ministers know what their responsibilities are?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I will gladly look into that. The answer which I have given I believe to be correct. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the issues of career structure which have recently arisen in the context of arbitration on teachers' pay are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. If he has any particular case which he would like me to look into on this matter, I will gladly do so.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not obvious that as there have been 300 Amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill in the House of Lords, there is still a great deal of confusion about who is responsible for industrial relations in this matter? Will the Prime Minister tell us how the Industrial Relations Bill will affect this aspect of negotiations on teachers' pay? Should he not hurry along there before Report stage is finished to make Amendments to get it straight?

The Prime Minister: This is a question about career structure in the teaching profession. It is not concerned with the Industrial Relations Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (LETTERS TO THE PRIME MINISTER)

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on

the Government's handling of economic affairs.

The Prime Minister: Detailed figures are not available, although a large number deal with economic issues. Many of my correspondents recognise that the Government are determined to overcome inflation and the other economic problems which we inherited, and congratulate us on the progress which we have so far made.

Mr. Carter: May I ask the Prime Minister what replies he sends to those letters addressed to him on the sad, pathetic subject of unemployment among school leavers? Does he offer them the only solution which he has offered to me on this subject, a rather pathetic suggestion that if they cannot find jobs they should stay on at school?

The Prime Minister: I replied at great length and in great detail to the letter which the hon. Gentleman sent to me. I understand that he published it without reference, but he is entitled to do that. I do not propose to quote the letter of appreciation and thanks which he sent back to me for my reply. What I pointed out to him, because it was a matter raised in his letter, was that larger numbers of children were staying at school for further education. This has been going on for many years and is a development to be welcomed.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has been asked a number of times about various aspects of the unemployment which he was going to reduce, particularly about white-collar unemployment, which he said that he regarded seriously but about which he has said nothing in the House since. We all welcome any cases of children staying longer at school. But will he tell us what the prospects are for school leavers getting jobs this year compared with previous years? Will he not rely—and from what he said I hope that he will not want to rely—on children who want jobs, but cannot find them, going back to school? Will he tell us what the prospects are and give his mind to this important and serious problem?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am not saying that children should stay at school because they cannot get jobs. I am saying that in recent years there has been


a steady increase in the number of children staying longer at school. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides would welcome that, because of the additional education which they get.
As to the prospects for those who wish to leave school and to secure jobs, I believe that many of the fears and statements have been exaggerated, judging from what was happening at Easter when the great majority of school leavers were able to get jobs within a comparatively short time. Naturally we cannot forecast exactly what will happen to those leaving school this month, but I believe that many of the fears are exaggerated.

Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply today and previous replies show a totally complacent attitude about this question? If he came to areas like Liverpool and the North-East Coast he would find youths who left school on the last school-leaving occasion and who have never yet had employment. The youngsters leaving school now face the prospect of there being no openings for them at all.
Reverting to the point about sailing, is the Prime Minister aware that people in this country believe that while he is sailing around the coast he is not concerned with rising unemployment, rising prices and attacks on the social services, and that he does not care about their problems?

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to comment on the hon. Member's cheap, petty-minded jibes. I am quite capable of doing my job as Prime Minister and at the same time taking the necessary recreation, like any other sensible person in this country. I intend to go on doing so, whatever jibes the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may make.

Mr. Harold Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman has got over his little fit of petulance, will he address himself to the serious question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)? He will no doubt have seen some of the statements published about juvenile school leavers and employment prospects in some areas of this country. He will have seen, because it was published nationally, the position of Kirby on Merseyside where, each year, a committee representing the four comprehensive schools which

account for the whole of the secondary education there puts out its estimate of the number of school leavers who will get jobs, apart from those who want to stay on at school, about which we all agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Having studied the figures, will he tell us whether he is so complacent as he sounds about the number of jobs available for school leavers this year?

The Prime Minister: I am in no way complacent about it. Nor is any member of the Government. When it comes to a question of cheap, petty jibes, one expects the right hon. Gentleman to join in.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I have made no remarks about the right hon. Gentleman's hobbies. I will choose my own time to describe them. [Interruption.] If the House wants a part-time Prime Minister, it can have him. I asked the right hon. Gentleman about juvenile employment. He replied in his usual petulant manner when replying to my hon. Friend. Will he now answer the question about juvenile employment?

The Prime Minister: I have told the right hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency whatever in this Administration about that question.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is time that we got back on to the fairway.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (OVERSEAS SPEECHES)

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make it a practice of his Administration that Ministers making speeches abroad always make it clear whether or not they are speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister what is the practice of his Administration in regard to Governmental responsibility for statements made by Ministers overseas.

The Prime Minister: Speeches made by members of this Administration, whether at home or abroad, naturally reflect the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that a speech was made by the Minister of State for Defence at Munich in February of this year, and that the Ministry of Defence is now claiming that the Minister of State attended that conference in a purely private capacity, with the result that hon. Members have been denied the opportunity to put direct questions on that policy statement? That is bad enough, but will the right hon. Gentleman realise that other participating countries probably do not understand the technicalities of the British parliamentary system, and will he therefore write to the heads of Governments and say that the Minister of State was not speaking on behalf of the Government, and was therefore not expressing Government policy?

The Prime Minister: I understand that a copy of the Minister of State's speech has been put in the Library and is available for hon. Members to see. It was not, therefore, a private occasion, and I know of nothing in it that is contrary to Government policy.

Mr. Jenkins: The Prime Minister said that the noble Earl who sits in this House was speaking on behalf of the Government on the occasion of his speech in Munich. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are unable to put down Questions on this subject to the noble Earl because he is not the senior Minister in the matter? I am talking about Lord Balniel. I am sorry that in my anxiety to see him in his proper place I provoked him. As we cannot question the noble Lord in this House, will the Prime Minister reorganise his Government's arrangements so that when the senior Minister in this House speaks on behalf of the Government, the Opposition can question that Minister, and are allowed to put down Questions to him?

The Prime Minister: If I may say so, that is a confused complex of questions. I understood that I was dealing with the speech made by my noble Friend the Minister of State when he was in Munich. My noble Friend is a Member of this House. If these Questions are put to him, whether they are accepted is a matter for Mr. Speaker and the Table Office, and not for me. I am being asked questions about it today. My noble Friend's speech is in the Library for all hon. Members who wish to read it to do so.

Mr. Onslow: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much to the convenience of the House and of the country if the Leader of the Opposition could make it clear, when Members of the Shadow Cabinet make speeches, particularly on the subject of the Common Market, whether they are speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition to make clear, which no doubt he will do on Saturday.

Mr. George Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an important point of principle and procedure is raised by the noble Lord's speech? He is the senior Minister for Defence in this House, and we ought to be able to question the speeches that he makes, in Munich or elsewhere, just as much as we can question speeches by the Secretary of State for Defence. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that aspect of it?

The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the eligibility of Questions on speeches made by my noble Friend is a matter for Mr. Speaker and the Table Office, and not for me. A copy of the speech has been made available in the Library in the usual way for all right hon. and hon. Members who wish to read it to do so. The procedure on Questions is not for me to settle, and my noble Friend has no desire to avoid any questions whatsoever on his speech at Munich.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harold Wilson—Business Question.

Mr. Harold Wilson: rose—

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the cowardly murder of two soldiers in Belfast within the last seven days, and the thousands of pounds worth of damage that has been done, would you consider allowing my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence to answer Question No. 25, which he was precluded from answering during Question time?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request. Mr. Wilson—Business Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of your comments, Mr. Speaker, as one whose golf drives never get on the fairway, but who, whether on the fairway or in the rough, was within five minutes of being able to resume his Prime Ministerial duties, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I should now like to ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follows :
MONDAY, 19TH JULY—Supply [29th Allotted Day]: The House will immediately be asked to pass all outstanding Votes.
There will be a debate to approve the White Paper FAIR DEAL FOR HOUSING, Command No. 4728.
Remaining stages of the Mineral Workings Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY, 20TH JULY—A debate on economic affairs.
Second Reading of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Bill [Lords] and of the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords], which are Consolidation Measures.
WEDNESDAY, 21ST JULY, THURSDAY, 22ND JULY, FRIDAY, 23RD JULY, and MONDAY, 26TH JULY—Motion to take note of the White Paper on the United Kingdom and the European Communities, Command No. 4715.
At the end on Wednesday, 21st, Orders on Purchase Tax, Housing Corporation Advances, Rating and Valuation and Sea Fisheries.
At the end on Thursday, 22nd, the remaining stages of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Bill [Lords] and the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords].

Mr. Harold Wilson: On Monday's business, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the debate on the Housing White Paper—which must be a matter in respect of which the Government should provide time—is taking place in Opposition time in accordance with the understanding that we should have a

refund of that time on an appropriate future occasion?
Second, will he ask his right hon. Friend, in view of the concern expressed in the House about certain remarks that he made when answering questions about the White Paper, whether he will take the opportunity, in lieu of a personal statement, to make clear what he had in mind about the position of the previous Government, and to act in accordance with the proper proprieties of the House in this matter?
With regard to Tuesday's business on economic affairs, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the House may expect to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement on Monday which would, as it were, provide the basis for Tuesday's debate?

Mr. Whitelaw: I confirm what the right hon. Gentleman asked in his first question, that for the convenience of the arrangements the debate is taking place on an Opposition Supply Day in accordance with the usual arrangements which were frequently undertaken in the previous Parliament. We shall repay that day to the Opposition and therefore, technically, I think I can say that this debate, as I accept it should be, is taking place in Government time.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second question is that these matters can be raised during that debate. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's third question is "Yes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement on Monday."

Mr. Burden: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the debate on codes of practice which was to have been held last night did not take place. This is a very important matter. Can my right hon. Friend say when the debate will take place, and how much time will be allowed for it?

Mr. Whitelaw: The debate will probably take place during the week after next, certainly before we rise for the Summer Recess. I shall consider the question of time.

Mr. Jay: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed Motion No. 648 which refers to the use of public money by the Government for the dissemination of partisan propaganda?

[That this House deplores the action of Her Majesty's Government in using public funds to finance, and the Post Office to distribute, a propaganda document entitled Britain and Europe, based on a White Paper which this House has yet to approve ; records that such behaviour is contrary to the customs and ethics of British democracy ; and desires that the document be withdrawn.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the use of taxpayers' money by the Government for this purpose is a disreputable practice which ought to be discontinued?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all appreciate that such are the vagaries of Question Time that often important Questions are not reached, and in that sense there will be a lively sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. East (Mr. McMaster)? Could he therefore undertake that next week the Government will give an indication of their reactions to the unhappily deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland and, above all, tell the House what is their thinking about the raising of a permanent battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly call the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends concerned to what my hon. Friend has just said. I cannot give any commitment, but I shall look into the whole matter. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the problem of getting an answer to the Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster).

Mr. Stonehouse: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the Motion about genocide in East Bengal and the recognition of Bangla Desh has received the support of more than 210 right hon. and hon. Members, more than one-third of the House?

[That this House believes that the widespread murder of civilians and the atrocities on a massive scale by the Pakistan Army in East Bengal, contrary to the United Nations Convention on Genocide signed by Pakistan itself, confirms that the military Government of Pakistan has forfeited all rights to rule East Bengal, following its wanton refusal to accept the

democratic will of the people expressed in the election of December 1970 ; therefore believes that the United Nations Security Council must be called urgently to consider the situation both as a threat to international peace and as a contravention of the Genocide Convention ; and further believes that until order is restored under United Nations supervision, the provisional Government of Bangla Desh should be recognised as the vehicle for the expression of self-determination by the people of East Bengal.]

Since the Motion was put down an official parliamentary group has been on tour in East Bengal. This group confirms that the atrocities continue, and that it would be unwise for the refugees to return. In view of the continuing genocide, is it not urgent that the Motion should be discussed and the matter referred to the United Nations?

Mr. Whitelaw: Without necessarily accepting some of the right hon. Gentleman's points, which are really not for me, I recognise the importance of this particular problem. However, I am afraid that, in present circumstances, I cannot find time for a debate on this Motion.

Mr. Iremonger: Might one day of the debates on the White Paper on the E.E.C. be devoted to Early Day Motion No. 636,

[That this House, recognising the existence of sincere and strongly held views on the question of British entry to the Common Market which cut across party lines, urges party leaders to avoid the damage to the high standing of Parliament and the strong and justifiable resentment of the electorate which would result from any attempt to impose a voting pattern not reflecting these conscientious differences ; and calls for a free vote on this momentous issue, fraught as it is with irrevocable consequences for the British people.]

and my Amendment to it, to leave out from 'House' to the end, and to add :

['notes with regret and surprise that experienced and distinguished Parliamentarians should suggest that the conscience and best judgement of honourable Members are capable of being imposed upon to the extent of altering their voting intentions on a matter of major and historic


national importance ; reaffirms its recognition of the fact that all votes in this House are free, subject only to the inevitable conflicts of duty that beset honourable Members in every complex decision they have to make ; denies any suggestion that the classic methods of persuasion still surviving in socialist countries and among Irish guerillas, namely, murder, violence, blackmail and bribery have been attempted in this country since 1922 at the latest ; recognises that a Prime Minister who failed to indicate to the House in general and his supporters in particular the importance he attached to the central issue of his Government's policy would be doing less than his duty ; and will give its usual critical consideration to any guidance he gives when the time comes to vote on Great Britain's association with Europe'.]

Mr. Whitelaw: These are all matters which can be raised in that debate.

Mr. Michael Foot: Reverting to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), will the Leader of the House undertake to make a deeper study of this subject and to make a statement at the beginning of next week on it, because it raises important questions of principle as to whether or not a Government are entitled to use the taxpayers' money to disseminate what many of us believe to be a highly prejudiced account of proceedings on a White Paper which has not even been submitted to the House of Commons? Will he undertake to make a statement to the House next week indicating the precedents on which he is acting?

Mr. Whitelaw: I personally do not accept all that the hon. Gentleman said. I believe that this House and the country have asked for information on this matter, and that is exactly what they are getting.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to this Question, while all right hon. and hon. Members will be free to express their views in the "take note" debate which the right hon. Gentleman has announced, may I ask him to study the rules and conventions in this matter? Is he aware that the authorities responsible for advising Ministers on this question in the past advised the previous Government in two cases on which my memory is very clear

—not necessarily controversial areas—that it was contrary to the rules for the Government to issue these popular versions at public expense in any case in which the House of Commons had not decided the principle? I believe that one of them related to social security and superannuation. Would he look into the rules and conventions, and see what advice was given to the previous Government—I am very happy to waive the rules so that he may be told what advice was given to us—and see whether, on this question of propriety, the rules are being followed?

Mr. Whitelaw: Of course I will certainly look into this matter. I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Lane: Could my right hon. Friend give us time soon to discuss the proposal that the October debate on the Common Market should be broadcast on the radio?

Mr. Whitelaw: As I told the House during business questions last week, the Service Committee considered this matter, having taken evidence from the B.B.C. The Services Committee, as will be found in a Report to be published today, decided by a majority against such a debate taking place. If there were a general wish in the House that this matter should be debated, in order to give effect to my comments last week that it was a matter for decision of the House, I would of course seek to find time, despite the Services Committee's recommendation.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even those of us who have a committed position on Europe and are in favour of entry feel that there must be some cause for disquiet at taxpayers' money being used for propaganda in post offices on a highly controversial matter which has not yet been debated or discussed in the House? We would ask the Leader of the House to make a statement, having considered the authorities, very early next week.

Mr. Whitelaw: As I promised the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), I will certainly look into this matter. I will go no further than that at the moment.

Mr. Milne: On a point of order. In view of the attitude and answers of the Leader of the House on this subject of


the dissemination of propaganda by the Government over entry of the Common Market, may we seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on what protection the House has, since this propaganda is being spread despite the fact that neither the House nor the Government will have come to a decision on the question until next week's "take note" debate on the White Paper.

Hon. Members: Not even then.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair has many responsibilities, but they do not include responsibility for what the Government do. That is the Government's decision, and it must rest with them.

Mr. Cormack: Is it not a fact that the Leader of the Opposition himself congratulated the Government on making extra copies of the White Paper available to hon. Members? Is it not a logical extension of this that the shortened version should be made available to our constituents?

Mr. Whitelaw: Both the main White Paper and the shorter White Paper are, of course, statements of Government policy.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) seeks to extend the question which I thought it was fair to put to the right hon. Gentleman last week, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House must be bound by the rules in this respect, whatever view any right hon. or hon. Gentleman takes of the merits? The House has not been asked to appropriate money for this purpose. No doubt it will be in due course. Is he aware that we were informed—drawing on my memory, I think it referred to a superannuation White Paper of the Government—that, if this were put out on the responsibility of the Government, Ministers or anyone such as their party who were prepared to pay would be surcharged for the expenditure?

Mr. Whitelaw: I said that I would take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I can only repeat what I said in answer to the previous question—these are statements of Government policy.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Further to earlier questions on Early Day Motion No. 648.

If, on re-examining the matter over the weekend, the right hon. Gentleman feels unable to accede to our request in the manner suggested, would he undertake that equal facilities will be given to the spokesmen of the majority of the people of this country, so that their point of view can be put through post offices as well?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will go no further on this subject than what I have properly said to the Leader of the Opposition—that I will look into the matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to the question of the White Paper, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a recognised constitutional function of Government to inform—[Interruption.]— oh, yes, that is established by constitutional authority. Is it not a perfectly reasonable exercise of this function to publish factual information on Government policy, whether in full or abbreviated?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I must simply repeat what I have said before—that both these White Papers are statements of Government policy. I have undertaken to the Leader of the Opposition that I will look into the matter.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: In view of the important White Paper on the reform of housing finance in Scotland, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we will have a very early opportunity to discuss this important Measure either on the Floor of the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Whitelaw: I of course accept the importance of this White Paper. I understand that there are problems about the Scottish Grand Committee, in that, if this were to be done before we rise for the summer, it would mean a Motion changing the Standing Orders of that Committee. That is what I am informed is the position, but of course I am prepared to look into it.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all that is required is a Motion in the Government's name referring the White Paper to the Scottish Grand Committee and including the phrase "notwithstanding the relevant rule"? It is as simple as that.

Mr. Whitelaw: Of course, the final words, beginning "notwithstanding …", would mean that one would have to put down a particular Motion and secure a particular Resolution of the House, because that is what it is

Mr. Galbraith: Is not the way around the problem to have a combined debate on Monday? Since the principle is exactly the same, can we not discuss Scottish and English housing together?

Mr. Whitelaw: As the Leader of the Opposition fairly said, Monday started as an Opposition Supply Day. We made the arrangements that we did because they asked on that day to debate the White Paper, Fair Deal for Housing, Cmnd. 4728. which is the English White Paper. That was their wish, and it was their Supply Day. I think that we have done what they asked for.

Mr. Lawson: With reference to Monday's business, and the right hon. Gentleman's persistence in bringing on the Mineral Workings Bill after 10 o'clock that day, will the Leader of the House tell us whether he looked at what the Minister in charge of the Bill in Committee said and how he stressed his assurances that he would do everything possible to ensure that the Bill came on at a time which would give proper opportunity for discussion of the matters which could not be discussed in Committee? I have raised this before. What has the Leader of the House done, and what is he doing about it?

Mr. Whitelaw: I looked into this. I do not think that my hon. Friend's assurances went quite as far as that. I feel that it is reasonable that the matter should be taken at 10 o'clock, and I should like to try to proceed and see how we get on.

Mr. Farr: Only a short space of parliamentary time is required for the final passage of the Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill. Will my right hon. Friend provide that time?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir. I am afraid that, in accordance with my practice regarding Private Members' Bills. I cannot accede to that request.

Mr. Milne: May I refer again to Motion No. 648 and your observations,

Mr. Speaker, on the question of Government expenditure in the dissemination of propaganda about Government policy? Will the Leader of the House give an assurance, in view of the widespread anxiety in the House, that he will make a statement on this matter next week giving a clear lead on where Parliament's responsibility lies over the use of public money in this connection and in what way the money has been voted by Parliament for this exercise?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall confine myself to what I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Marten: Could my right hon Friend say whether copies of the so-called popular edition of the White Paper are being distributed through the Conservative Party machine and, if so, what are the economics of that? If he cannot tell us now, could he tell us next week?

Mr. Whitelaw: The Conservative Party machine is no responsibility of mine. As regards my hon. Friend's comments about a popular version, whatever he may think, it is a very popular version and a great many copies have been taken up.

Mr. Harold Wilson: We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his dissociation from a most unpopular organisation. In his studies of the matter, which he very fairly offered to make, will he look into such matters as the White Paper of the previous Government on leasehold reform, which, I think, at the end of the day secured the support of the whole House, and other similar Papers, on which, because there had been no vote of the House, no popular version could be put in post offices?

Mr. Whitelaw: I undertook to the right hon. Gentleman that I should look into these matters. Reverting to my comment about the Conservative Central Office, may I say that I have some connection with that body but I am not personally responsible for its activities to Parliament.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that anxiety as to the constitutional propriety of what has been done is by no means confined to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and will he give a full exposition of the precedents governing the matter when


he makes his statement next week? Will he dissociate himself from the dangerous implications of the point of view advanced by, I regret to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), realising that there are grave constitutional dangers when the Government of the day take on that sort of rôle?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to follow what my right hon. and learned Friend has said on this matter any further than I have done, save to say that I have not undertaken to make a statement next week. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] I have undertaken to look into the matter, and that I shall do.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 646, on the withdrawal of Government support for the film industry. Will he provide an early oportunity to debate this matter, recognising, as I pointed out to him last week, that the Parliamentary Secretary has announced an important change in Government policy by Written Answer? This ought not to be allowed to happen, and the House ought to be given an early opportunity to debate such an important change.

[That this House, having noted the success of the National Film Finance Corporation since its inception by a Labour Government in 1949, its promotion of British films enabling British culture and British ideas to be spread around the world, its undoubted success in aiding Great Britain's export drive, and that without subsidy it has, during the last 20 years, helped to finance 750 British feature films plus hundreds of low cost productions, that all this was recognised by the previous Government and it was decided that the continued existence of the National Film Finance Corporation was a desirable measure of support for the film industry and concluded that it should be legislatively support for another 10 years, is shocked to learn that Her Majesty's Government is to reduce the effectiveness of the National Film Finance Corporation by curbing its loans from Government sources and is gradually to withdraw from the financing of films, has imposed upon the Corporation the stipulation that it must in future raise £3 million from private sources in order to

qualify for a £1 million loan from the Government ; considers that this is a disastrous change which will have the effect of frustrating the production of British films with its consequent effects upon the employment of British talent, skills and studios, the sales of British films abroad and the gradual curtailment of the presentation overseas of the British way of life through the medium of British films ; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reverse this mean and shortsighted policy, to restore the previous loan-making powers of the National Film Finance Corporation and to recognise that the public interest demands the maintenance of Government support for the British film industry through the National Film Finance Corporation.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I told the hon. Gentleman last week that I should look into this. I think it was a reasonable way of announcing the decision, and I stand by that at present.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has batted off a large number of questions, to the satisfaction of the House. I think, until his last answer on the subject, by saying that he would look into the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members and myself. But surely he cannot now say that, when he has looked into it, he will just write a little note to himself and not tell the House about it. The implication is that he must make a statement. I may have misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman's last observation to the effect that he would not make a statement. Will he now make quite clear that after he has looked into the matter, having been asked all these questions, he will make a statement to the House on what the rules are and whether they are being observed?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly look into the matter. The reason why I said no more than that I would look into it is that I was not exactly sure who is the responsible Minister and who should make the statement. If I am that person, I shall, of course, make it. I undertake that there will be a statement. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to be unfair to me. I was not prepared to say that I would make it—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Whitelaw: I did not say that I would make a statement because I was not sure whether I was the proper person to make it. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members getting so excited about me. To adopt an analogy used earlier this afternoon, they may think that they have got me deep into the rough, but I have a good habit of coming out rather quickly from such positions.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand us. As we have such an exciting Leader of the House, we may well on occasion get very excited about him. Will he take it that no one was suggesting that he himself must make a statement if it ought to be made by some other responsible Minister, but we were concerned by one answer which he gave, and, when he looks it up in HANSARD, he will see, I think, why we were anxious, lest it implied that there would be no statement. He has now made the position perfectly clear, and we are satisfied with it.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must proceed to warmer waters. Sir Alec Douglas-Home—statement on Malta.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the refusal of the Leader of the House to provide proper time for debate on Motion No. 646, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you advise me, a comparatively new Member, on how I can be called for a question on business? Many of us feel that our questions are just as important as those which are asked by some of the right hon. and hon. Members who are called week after week. Would you please advise me on how I can catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker: I am very willing to advise the hon. Gentleman. But perhaps it would be better if I advised him in private.

MALTA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
I think it is right to inform the House of the situation which has arisen in our relations with Malta over the 1964 Defence and Financial Agreements. The first gives Britain the right to station our armed forces in Malta, while the second, which is dependent upon the Defence Agreement, covers the provision of British aid to Malta. Both these Agreements are due to run until 1974.
As soon as he took office on 17th June, the Prime Minister of Malta, Mr. Mintoff, informed us that he wished to replace these Agreements, which, he said, were no longer valid. Then, in a series of messages, he asked that a Minister should come to Malta to negotiate a new agreement under which aid would be replaced by a form of rent for military facilities, and those facilities would be redefined.
He also said that the Minister should come on the basis that the 1964 Defence and Financial Agreements were at an end and that the new negotiation should be completed before the end of July. Mr. Mintoff would not elaborate any further on his proposals. This left us in doubt on a number of very important questions, for example Mr. Mintoff's intentions towards N.A.T.O., the redefinition he had in mind for our defence facilities and the financial implications.
Against this background, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message yesterday to Mr. Mintoff in which he said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence would travel to Valletta in the course of the day and would be ready to discuss with Mr. Mintoff his proposals for modification of the existing Agreements. Lord Carrington's purpose would be to ascertain whether it was possible to negotiate fresh arrangements of a kind which he could recommend to the British Government to approve.
It was in reply to that message that Mr. Mintoff claimed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had rejected


all the conditions proposed by Mr. Mintoff for a fruitful meeting. He added as he has since made public in a statement, that he hoped that the Malta Government would not be caused the additional embarrassment of
having to ignore the presence of the British Cabinet Minister on the island.
To this message my right hon. Friend replied :
Your message speaks of conditions. I had hoped I had made clear that there cannot be prior conditions in a matter which is essentially one for negotiation : and a negotiation requires that each of the parties should come to the table, with good-will and without prejudice to their respective views, to discuss matters which are of common concern to them in an honest and genuine attempt to reach agreement. It was for this purpose and in this spirit that Lord Carrington would have come to Malta, in the hope of agreeing with you fresh arrangements which he could recommend the British Government to accept. Lord Carrington remains ready to come, but since you say that you would have found this visit embarrassing. I renew my earlier invitation that you yourself, or your representative, should come to London.
We have made clear to Mr. Mintoff that we have no desire to maintain forces in Malta against the will of the Malta Government. We have also made clear that we are ready to enter into negotiation at Ministerial level, in good faith and without preconditions, with a view to reaching an agreement satisfactory to both sides. We hope that the Malta Government will now agree that talks should start on this basis.
A further message to my right hon. Friend from Mr. Mintoff had been received by telephone just before I came into the House. This message holds out a hope that it may be possible to resolve the difficulty between us, but the House will understand if I say no more until my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to study the text.

Mr. Healey: I wish, first, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Government's calm in this rather turbulent situation. I am sure hon. Members will feel that this is a good time, in a particularly hot summer, to allow tempers to cool before resuming discussions. However, I hope very much that the Prime Minister of Malta will accept his invitation to come to London and discuss the matter as a reasonable man round a table.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that Her Majesty's Government have no desire to keep forces in Malta against the will of the Malta Government. Will he make it clear to that Government that Britain's interest in keeping forces in Malta at this time is comparatively small and arises not out of Britain's national interests but out of our obligations as a member of N.A.T.O.? If this is understood, it seems that some reasonable settlement of this problem can, in the end, be reached.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We very much hope that discussions can be started in a friendly way. After all, in view of the history that there is between this country and Malta, we will lean over backwards to try to get a reasonable discussion started.
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about our not needing to keep forces in Malta for our own defence purposes or for the defence of the island of Malta are true. As he said, they are part of the N.A.T.O. set-up, which is valuable in the Western Mediterranean.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: May I add my congratulations on the way in which my right hon. Friend is handling this difficult situation and express the hope that he may reach a solution which is satisfactory both to the people of Malta and to this country? May I also point out that, whatever happens, the regard of the people of this country for the people of Malta will continue in the same way as it has for many years?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can only repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman—that we will do our best.

Mr. William Hamilton: In view of the apparent conflict of evidence as to what has taken place between the new Government of Malta and the British Government, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider publishing a White Paper containing all the correspondence that has passed between the two Governments, supplementing the information which he has given to the House this afternoon?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I suggest that the important thing is to try to start


negotiations, but I would certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in certain circumstances.

Sir F. Bennett: Is there any provision under the existing Defence Agreement for unilaterally breaking it off before its expiry, a point which many of us will obviously have to bear in mind in thinking of the validity of any assurances about the future?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is no provision for unilateral renunciation.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain that Her Majesty's Government do not take too serious a view of the message which came yesterday from the Prime Minister of Malta in regard to the visit of the Secretary of State for Defence? There has been a rather hectic interchange and it is now plainly desirable to de-escalate the atmosphere.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think the House will feel that we could not possibly help but take the situation yesterday seriously. We had offered to send a senior Minister of the British Cabinet to discuss the matter in good faith. We had to take the situation yesterday evening seriously ; but, as I said, we hope to start discussions, and Lord Carrington is always ready to go.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: I said yesterday that I would rule on the submission on a matter of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I have considered his submission and the precedents carefully.
I must make clear what in my view is the position of the Chair. It is not part of my duty to deal with the substance of a complaint. It would be quite improper for me to pronouce on the merits or the degree of importance to be attached to a particular submission. I simply have to say whether I will give precedence to a Motion dealing with the matter. What happens to the Motion, if moved, is not a matter for me : it is for the House.
I have decided in this case to allow a Motion to be moved now. That is the extent of my decision.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it falls to me, in accordance with practice, to move.
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
It would, I suggest, be in the best interests of the House as a whole if we decided that no further debate should take place at this stage.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Despite the last few words of the right hon. Gentleman, there is a point I wish to make, though the House will recognise the difficulty in which the Leader of the House is placed. It is his duty, after a Ruling such as you have just given, Mr. Speaker, which no hon. Member would be disposed to challenge, to move a reference to the Committee of Privileges. However, as the House will recognise—this should be said and this is why I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman—that tomorrow the House will be asked to reach decisions about the procedure in privilege cases.
It is not competent for any of us to say what decisions the House will take on the Motions which the right hon. Gentleman will be submitting, some of which may well involve a different procedure in such cases from that which is at the moment the procedure binding on the Leader of the House.
I am making no comment on the validity of the complaint which has been made. When a matter is referred to the Committee of Privileges, the members of that Committee would not wish to prejudice the situation in advance. However, I suggest that as tomorrow the House will be asked to take decisions which could lead to a different procedure, the right hon. Gentleman might care to consider withdrawing his Motion today and then on Monday consider the position again in the light of whatever decision the House has taken. If the House has by that time laid down a different procedure, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have the full backing of the House in following that procedure, whatever it may be.
If, on the other hand, the House in its wisdom tomorrow were to reject his own proposals as Leader of the House so that the present procedure has to be followed, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will use


your discretion to allow the right hon. Gentleman to move this Motion again, in which case I am sure that he would get the assent of the whole House, and the matter would be referred to the Committee of Privileges in accordance with the rules we now have, but which might be different on Monday after tomorrow's debate.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am, of course, very ready to respond to what the right hon. Gentleman says, but we are now placed in some difficulty. I am entirely in the hands of the House, and I certainly wish to know, if other views are expressed, the feeling of the House as a whole.
The problem is simply this. If the new procedure were passed tomorrow, such a complaint at this would have to go straight to the Committee of Privileges, which would decide whether it was a case that ought to be brought to the House as a prima facie case of breach of privilege. That decision would be for the Committee of Privileges in that situation.
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that it is very awkward that this problem should come up now. Now that you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that this is a prima facie breach of privilege, it would be difficult for the Committee of Privileges under the new procedure to rule otherwise. That is why I thought that the best way would be to move to refer the complaint to the Committee of Privileges, where over a long period of time these matters have been dealt with, I think, very fairly, and to the great satisfaction of the House as a whole.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Michael Foot rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand his feelings, but I think that he owes something to me in that I am bringing before the House tomorrow matters that he has been very keen to have brought forward. I think I am owed that.
I realise the difficulties. I am in the hands of the House, but I thought it right that I should point out the difficulty we are in.

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I might help the House a little. I very deliberately did not use the phrase

"prima facie case". All I said was that I would allow the Motion to be put. I did so because I was aware of the circumstances.

Mr. David Steel: Without in any way going into the merits of the case at all, I am very sympathetic to what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said. But he will appreciate also that as of yesterday one had recourse only to the existing procedure of the House. I say at once that if it were possible to anticipate decisions which the House might take tomorrow and have the matter referred next week to the Committee of Privileges under the new procedure, if accepted by the House, I would accept that, but I must plainly say that what I am not willing to do is to agree to any suggestion that we should defeat the Motion which has been moved by the Leader of the House and let the matter drop entirely. If I can be assured that it would be dealt with under the new procedure next week, and that it would be possible for me to refer it in writing under the new procedure, I would not press the point now ; but not otherwise.

Sir Robin Turton: I do not quite follow the difficulty mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, the effect of your decision is to give the matter priority. Either we as a House can say that this is a very grave breach of privilege and make our own decision, as has been done in certain cases, or we can remit it to the Committee of Privileges. The only difference, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, is that under the new procedure cases of this nature would in future be considered earlier by the Committee of Privileges. The Committee of Privileges is formed of some very responsible people, such as the Leader of the Opposition. Surely, on the matter being referred to them, they would act taking into account tomorrow's debate.
I cannot therefore see what is the objection to the House doing as it always has done, which is, Mr. Speaker, directly you have made your Ruling to ask for a Committee of Privileges to be set up to look into the matter.
This is a very important question. It is a question of arm twisting, with financial implications. We may all have different views on different forms of arm


twisting, but in these circumstances I should not like the country to think that we were sweeping this complaint under the carpet—[HON. MEMBERS : "No."] That might be misinterpreted—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Harold Wilson: No. I said that the House should remain in command of the situation ; and that the alternatives were either to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges now, when we are bound by the old rules, or on Monday. I said that when the House has determined its procedure the right hon. Gentleman should be free either to refer the complaint to the Committee of Privileges under the new rules or, in the light of anything said in tomorrow's debate, to which he will listen—and the House will decide—he should be free to refer it under the old rules, so that the Motion comes back to the House on Monday. There is no disagreement about that.

Sir R. Turton: I say that it should be sent to the Committee of Privileges. Here is a certain matter alleging arm twisting, with financial implications. With the debate coming on next week, we want to get the complaint to the Committee of Privileges as quickly as possible, bearing in mind that we are nearly at the beginning of the Summer Recess. I therefore very much hope that on reflection the Leader of the Opposition will realise that the correct course is to agree that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, let me say that there is no suggestion by anybody that the matter should be swept under the carpet. All we want to do is to deal with the matter in the way that the House feels right after tomorrow's debate. We think that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should be free to come back on Monday, in the light of that debate, and take whatever decision fits in with it. Everyone feels that the question will have to be referred in one form or another, but I suggest that it should be left to the Leader of the House to bring it to the House on Monday.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think I have the sense of what is going on in the House. My

trouble lies in whether tomorrow's Motion will be acceptable to the House, because I have specifically said that I shall not wish to press it tomorrow if there is substantial opposition to it. I therefore cannot say whether or not the new procedure will be accepted. I do not know whether there is a way out of this difficulty, but I suggest that one way would be to agree that if tomorrow's Motion does not go through I shall be entitled to move just this present Motion again on Monday. If that were allowed, it might be a way out for the House. But I would have to be allowed to move the Motion again on Monday if tomorrow's Motion were not carried.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Perhaps, as the Leader of the House has spoken more than once, I may have leave to speak again on this point. That is exactly what I have proposed, Mr. Speaker. If you in your discretion can give priority to the Leader of the House on Monday, he should be free then to move whatever Motion seems appropriate in the circumstances.
I would add that because of these special circumstances in which the House is placed, Mr. Speaker, you yourself gave a Ruling different from the Rulings we have known in the past, in that you did not speak of a prima facie breach of privilege. In those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had to act without precedent by moving a Motion for reference without a Ruling from the Chair that the complaint constituted a prima facie breach of privilege. The right hon. Gentleman took the only step open to him, but without the usual cover from the Chair about prima facie breach.
Surely, in the circumstances, common sense should rule that when the House has taken a decision on procedure tomorrow the right hon. Gentleman should have absolute freedom, Mr. Speaker, within any discretion you can use—and if there is no such discretion, I would be prepared to put down a procedural Motion for the House to allow you that discretion—to do on Monday whatever he thinks appropriate, so that the matter is not swept under the carpet.

Mr. Whitelaw: I must make one point quite clear. If the Motion for the new procedure is passed tomorrow it would


not necessarily be under that new procedure that I would come to the House on Monday, because it might be that under the new procedure the Committee of Privileges might decide that this was not a matter which should come before the House at all. The House should know that, because it is within the new procedure.

Mr. Thorpe: I should like to be helped on a procedural point which troubles me. If it could be solved, the very real point made by the Leader of the Opposition would be met. As I see it, if the new procedure is agreed tomorrow there is no alteration in the substance of the complaint ; the merits or demerits of the case are precisely the same under whichever procedure we pursue these matters. But it is within the knowledge of the House that in making a complaint speed is of the essence, and any delay in making that complaint puts the right hon. Gentleman out of order, out of court, on that matter.
I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, or perhaps that of the Leader of the House, as to what is the effect of delays when you have given the Ruling that you have on this matter, which you consider should have precedence, no more and no less, and then that matter is deferred for three days and a further procedural Motion arising out of that appears on the Order Paper. If delay is not fatal, it seems that we can meet the very proper objections of the Leader of the Opposition. If delay is fatal it seems that we have no alternative but to proceed in one way or another under the existing procedure.

Mr. Speaker: I am in a difficulty. I am longing to give evidence with regard to the prima facie point. I would like to make a speech on the general issue but all I am allowed to do is to give a Ruling. So far as my Ruling

is concerned, if it is the general wish of the House, it would be perfectly in order for a Motion to be moved on Monday. Therefore, I will put the matter formally.
Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We cannot make rules as we go along. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but nothing is carried and I have as much authority as anyone else. I do not want the House to get into a procedural mess. What I want clearly understood is that notwithstanding anything that we have done today we can consider the matter de novo on Monday. That is the point which is important. It should be pointed out that under the new rules you, Mr. Speaker, are not necessary on Monday. It would go automatically to the Committee of Privileges. That has to be clearly understood. It is only for the sake of clarity and because of a deep interest in this matter that I do not want the House to be misled.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand the position, I have ruled that the matter can be considered de novo on Monday on a Motion moved by the Leader of the House ; in other words, that I will not take the delay point in this instance, as I think that it is the general wish of the House that I should not take it.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman knows so much more about this subject than I, and I am very nervous about proceeding further. But I think I am correct in saying that the procedure which we are now following leaves all options open to us, dependent upon what happens in the debate tomorrow, either under the new or the old procedure.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[28TH ALLOTTED DAY].—considered

Orders of the Day — HOMELESS PEOPLE (LONDON)

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's delay in acting effectively on the Greve Report on Homelessness in London and other reports on London housing available to Ministers during the past 12 months.
I start by drawing attention to the first policy objective set down in the 1970 Conservative election manifesto under the heading "Homes for All". This was "to house the homeless". More than a year has passed since then, and what has happened to the record of the Conservative Government in that time? The answer, generally, is many words but virtually no action. That is what the debate is about. It is not about the Government's failure to solve London's housing problems in a few weeks or months. That needs years of consistent effort, understanding, resource and organisation, and during such time there are bound to be ups and downs in the efficacy of policy and how effectively a housing programme can be mounted.
The debate is about the failure of the Government to act meaningfully on the evidence, conclusions and recommendations of the Greve Report on Homelessness in London and other relevant reports. Right from the start the Government dealt deviously with this report. It was commissioned by the previous Government as part of a general policy of building up full and more accurate data as a basis for housing policy decisions. The study was virtually on Ministers' desks on the day they took office in June, 1970.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Why was this report, which was commissioned by the previous Government, published not as a White Paper for discussion by Members of Parliament but as a commercial venture through the bookshops? It seems an extraordinary way to publish it.

Mr. Freeson: I also regret that there could not have been a Government publication. This matter was raised during an exchange in a debate in December, 1970, and there was an agreement between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Birmingham Centre of Urban Research on this matter. I understand that the book which has appeared is not the Report as such but an updated version of the material, based on the Report, using much of the material and material from other sources.
I am concerned here with what has happened since that report was made available, long before any publication in book form. It was commissioned by the previous Government as part of a general policy of building up information and accurate data as a basis for housing policy decisions, and it was on the desks of Ministers, and certainly within their Departments, on the day that they took office last June. Since early June it had been available in the Departments concerned, yet they pretended that it had not been received. Press reports appeared about its existence in the Department of Health and Social Security and the Housing Department.
Several of my hon. Friends asked Questions about it, but in November, 1970, the Secretary of State for Social Services told the House that he had not yet received this report. Then, in December, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told us that the report had been received in June but that it was only a draft version, despite the fact that Professor Greve stated publicly the same month that his research team delivered its final report to the Department early in June.
This is a strange and somewhat irresponsible way for Ministers to handle an important study concerning the living conditions of millions of people.

Mr. James Allason: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether it was in Professor Greve's contract that he was responsible for the publication and that the Government had no rights of publication?

Mr. Freeson: With respect, the point I make is not about publication. The Minister has rightly given an answer on this in December. I am saying that there


was a denial of the existence of the report by the Department concerned. [Interruption.] I am told that this is "Rubbish". I refer again to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 24th November. In an answer to a Question, he said :
I have not yet received this report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1970 ; Vol. 807, c. 68.]
One month later the Under-Secretary of State said that it was available in June. He said that it was a draft report, whereas it was publicly stated to have been the final version. These are the contradictions. I am concerned today not about when a book was published but about the fact that the Government had the report in their hands in June and denied that they had received it in November.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that we had that report in June but were not allowed to publish because of the terms of a contract made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland)?

Mr. Freeson: I am talking not about publication but about a denial of the existence of the report.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Lewisham, West) rose—

Mr. Freeson: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have given way three or four times already.
I can well understand hon. Members opposite being a little sensitive on this point because they denied and contradicted the facts on several occasions in the House and in public by leaks to the Press. The plain facts is that the report was there, it was denied, and when it was accepted that it was there, we were told that it was a draft report when, in fact, it was a final report.
Worse was to follow. I see the Parliamentary Private Secretary is laughing. This is no laughing matter. The report having been inherited from the previous Administration in June, 1970, it was not until March of this year, nine months later, that any action was taken by the Government. That action was to set up

another committee—a joint working party representing the Department of Health and Social Security and the London Boroughs Association. So far as I am aware, judging by the cover note to the report, it did not include representatives from the Department of the Environment, but I am not certain about that.
The terms of reference included centrally the point that the working party was to consider some of the implications of the Greve Report. Almost one year after the Greve Report was received, on 27th May of this year, the working party issued its first report, hurried along by the fact that publication of the book based upon the Greve Report was to take place the same day.
The working party's first conclusion was cursorily to reject the case for re-defining the term and concept of homelessness. The Greve Report examines at some length the need for a fuller definition of the term—for example, to cover the many thousands of families and individuals who are potentially homeless, those who are in shared households, split families, and other groups in similar difficulties.
None of this is discussed by the working party, which simply defines homeless-ness as actual loss of a roof, which is precisely what has been the problem in the past. It is the crudity of this definition which has caused widespread concern and criticism outside Government and inside Government, as well I know from my time in the Ministry.
The Conservative election manifesto a year ago declared
The problem of the homeless is concealed by unrealistic official statistics. We will lay down a more sensible definition …
The Secretary of State for the Environment made more than one speech or more than one reference and gave more than one undertaking to do precisely this.
The Minister for Housing and Construction should tell us this : does the undertaking given in the election manifesto to redefine the homeless still stand? If so, the working party's conclusion, which the Minister or the Secretary of State for Social Services has circulated to local authorities, must be rejected by the Government.
The rest of the working party's conclusions are commendable—for example,


that councils should accept an overriding duty to ensure accommodation for homeless families with children ; that where homelessness or family breakdown seems imminent, the homeless should have separate dwellings in the council's housing pool, accommodation being a housing, not a welfare function ; that families should not be evicted or split up by councils ; that social services' functions should be to receive and act on early warnings of homelessness and to take preventive action, assess needs, and give social work support to families ; and that there should be uniform policy and practice throughout the London area.
I do not demur from one of these recommendations, but was it necessary to wait nine months to appoint yet another committee to repeat these recommendations? Every one of them is to be found explicitly or implicitly in the original Greve Report. Why wait nine months to get a further report repeating the same recommendations?
I understand that the G.L.C. and the London boroughs have been studying the Greve Report and submitting their views to the Government. Now the Government have sent them the working party's report and have invited them to discuss these proposals as soon as they have studied them. More reports are to follow in similar vein over unspecified periods ahead. I understand from my reading of the first working party report that it will take some time, whatever that may be, before it reaches conclusions on recommendations which arose from the conclusions and evidence stated in the Greve Report originally a year ago. Shall we find ourselves in July, 1972, still asking when the Government propose to act on the recommendations?
In view of the limited time for this debate and the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in it, I intend to refer to only some of Professor Greve's recommendations. I do not propose to go over much of the ground that he has dealt with so adequately and fully in his report, though I shall refer to some figures a little later.
I turn first to the recommendation that there is a need which should be examined very carefully for establishing community legal advice services in housing problem areas and housing stress areas. Several organisations have previously

looked into this. Indeed, some of them have tried to sponsor such services in these neighbourhoods. Perhaps most notable is the study which was undertaken some time ago by the Society of Labour Lawyers, but it is not confined to that. There have been neighbourhood council sponsorships or similar sponsorships in a number of areas.
Under the previous Government the Lord Chancellor issued a White Paper in January 1970 entitled, "The Report of the Advisory Committee on the Better Provision of Legal Advice and Assistance", Cmnd. 4249. More than 18 months have passed and this report is still being considered by the new Lord Chancellor's Department. May we be told today when the Government will act on this recommendation, which is very largely relevant to the Lord Chancellor's White Paper under the previous Government?
The next recommendation that I want to mention is that the public needs to be better informed about selection procedures for council housing and the general management of properties and related matters. The Cullingworth Report—"Council Housing, Purposes, Procedures and Priorities"—is particularly relevant here. It was circulated to all housing authorities, if I remember correctly, towards the end of 1969 and was being evaluated in the Ministry prior to June, 1970, with a view to contacts, consultations and discussions with the local authority associations subsequently. That consultation was to follow from our evaluation in the Ministry and the studies that no doubt local authorities themselves were making of the reports, with a view to action being taken of many of the excellent recommendations which, despite the fact that we had not come to firm policy announcements, we were endorsing in speeches which we were making around the country and in our discussions with particular local authorities when we had contact with them.
Nothing further has been heard for over a year. When will the Government act on the Cullingworth Report, or has it been shelved? May we be told today because it is directly relevant to the Greve recommendation on this point?
The next recommendation I turn to is that there is a strong case for extending


security of tenure to furnished accommodation in London. One of the main trends which the Greve Report found was an increase in furnished accommodation with little security, poor facilities, and exorbitant rents. It is within this type of housing that a substantial part of homelessness arises. Yet the Government have refused to act to help these tenants. They number about 200,000 in the London area, and they are for the most part, if not entirely, concentrated in the Inner London stress areas.
The Government must surely think again in the light of all the evidence presented by Professor Greve and many others on this score. It is absolutely appalling that we are to continue, if the Government persist in their previous decision on this matter, to exclude from further help that section of the London community which is in greatest need.
Perhaps one of the most important recommendations for the medium and long term was that there should be a regional housing authority with strategic powers and responsibilities for the London area. That recommendation repeats the major recommendation in the Cullingworth Report on London housing submitted to the Government last September. Both Greve and Cullingworth have said that that is a prime and urgent need for London, but no action has been taken, nor has any view been expressed by the Government on the matter, except in one inaccurate sentence in their appendix to the working party's report, where they say that it is the responsibility of the Greater London Council. If that is what the Government believe, they must be the only people in the country who do. It does not appear in the London Government Act, and it is not a view held by the G.L.C., much as its officials and individuals may wish it to be the case. It is not a view of the present position held by anyone who has studied the London housing scene. How much longer do we have to wait before there is a proper evaluation of the recommendation and action is taken upon it instead of there being an inaccurate public statement in the first sentence of comment on it?
Perhaps the most obvious recommendation, but the most important immediately and in the long term, is that

the greatest need of the homeless is for more good housing in London.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): Hear, hear.

Mr. Freeson: I am glad to hear the Minister say "Hear, hear". I only wish that some of his colleagues in local government had said the same over the past three years and had acted. The overall shortage of houses in London stands at about 250,000. That is the deficiency, irrespective of the condition of property. Apart from exhortation to local councils, letters and meetings, the Government have taken no action to increase the housing effort in Greater London. All that the Minister for Housing and Construction has done on the recommendations, so far as I can gather, is to announce a further conference of authorities in October—to do what, we do not yet know—and to issue Press notices to say that he has asked authorities to pursue a vigorous building programme and has requested outer areas to help the inner area's housing needs. Is that what he calls dynamic action? The Department is not even monitoring the results of such requests. Questions were asked in the House about land assembly and no answers were forthcoming. One of the big problems is inadequate monitoring, as I discovered when I was at the Ministry. Has there been any follow-up?
Let us remember when I make these comments that the Tories' first housing policy objective in their Manifesto was to house the homeless. I hope that the Minister will not trot out for too long his usual answer to every housing problem put to him, by referring to the White Paper on housing finance. We shall debate the rights and wrongs of that next Monday. What is important for today's debate is that 200,000 tenants of furnished tenancies in London who are most at risk of homelessness are excluded from its provisions. Yet the Greve Report shows that a disproportionate number of people who become homeless are from furnished tenancies. In boroughs with most homeless families, such as Kensington, Westminster and Camden, from one-quarter to one-third of the dwellings are furnished tenancies. But borough figures conceal the worst position. For example,


in my own borough of Brent the percentage of furnished tenancies is 12·7, but in Willesden, which is part of the borough, the figure rises to 30 to 40 per cent. in stress areas. Haringey has a figure of 12·5 per cent., but in parts of Tottenham, which is within Haringey, it rises to 30 per cent. In such areas hundreds of thousands of people gain nothing from the White Paper, though they pay the highest rents and are among those most liable to become homeless.
The White Paper provides no extra help for housing improvements, modernisation and conversions in the twilight inner zones where families suffer the worst conditions. Above all, it does nothing to ensure that land in outer London is used to rehouse overcrowded families at risk in inner London as part of a bigger housing drive. That is the key issue. There is a net shortage of 250,000 homes and there are about 150,000 slums. There are 250,000 substandard dwellings in inner London. Therefore, London authorities need to build about 40,000 homes a year, clear about 15,000 slums and have about 40,000 sub-standard dwellings modernised if we are to solve our main problem in the 1970s.
Does the Minister accept those figures? If he does, what does he propose to do to achieve them, not immediately but within a reasonable period, a period which he might suggest? If he does not accept the figures—and he has been very shy in his public pronouncements about discussing such facts—perhaps he would like to tell us why he does not when they are figures drawn from within the Department when I was there.
For a few years we were on the road toward achieving such figures. Local authority housing starts rose from about 18,000 in 1963 to 31,000 in 1967 in the Greater London areas. Then the Conservatives won control of the G.L.C. and subsequently of most town halls in 1968. From then on the housing effort slumped, and it is now running at about 20,000 housing starts a year. Only 5,000 slums a year are being cleared, and that figure looks like dropping as the number of dwellings in slum clearance representations to the Minister has dropped over those three to four years from about 7,600 in 1967 to about 3,500 in 1970. House modernisation is running at 10,000

to 12,000 a year, an increase over previous figures, but we have yet to see whether the graph will show a constant and rapid move toward the kind of figure which is essential if we are to clear up the problem of obsolescence in London.
If the figures I have given continue, they spell disaster for London and continuing hopelessness for the homeless. Fresh initiatives must be taken. They may well have to cut across autonomy, and not only in local government. Like Greve, I
… recognise that consideration of the limits of local discretion, and of variation in policies, raises sensitive and complex principles—of relations between central and local government and of 'local self-government'.
But there is an overriding issue—our responsibility to end the urban squalor which millions of men, women and children have to suffer. If present methods are inadequate to do this, others have to be tried.
I want to put some of the proposals that we were studying when we left office last year. First, the Government should, in my view, direct the G.L.C. and the appropriate London boroughs to undertake an immediate and speedy listing of available sites for residential development. These should be purchased by negotiation or compulsory purchase order where necessary, and I have reason to believe that homes for about 60,000 people could be built on sites which could be made available in this way within the next two years as a first stage only.
Secondly, if the G.L.C. does not act, the Minister should act directly on the survey concerned. There are plenty of Labour-controlled councils now which will be glad to co-operate. He should act directly to plan the purchase of the sites in question with the local authorities and possibly the Housing Corporation or appropriate housing associations. It is a pity that, in their ideological attitude towards this problem, the Government have ensured that the Land Commission is no longer available to be used for this purpose. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not smile too broadly at that because discussions were going on at one time between the G.L.C. and the Land Commission with a view to the Land Commission acting directly on assistance to local government in urban renewal areas.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: How many acres of land did the Land Commission manage to find in Croydon, which was one of the operations it was concerned about?

Mr. Freeson: The Land Commission had not completed the negotiations. The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying. It had been approached by the G.L.C. to discuss ways in which there could be co-operation in urban renewal. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned that Croydon should assist in dealing with the London housing problem, I suggest that he makes urgent and strong representations to the local authority concerned so that it may offer land to the Inner London boroughs, which wish to build, or the G.L.C., which wishes to build. He should make representations not to me but to the Minister and the Conservative-controlled council concerned. The Minister should act directly, as I have suggested, to get this purchase undertaken.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State should request, or if necessary direct, British Rail to make available immediately as much as possible, if not all, of the approximately 1,000 acres of its non-operational and surplus land for housing and related purposes. He should also direct that air and decking rights should be available immediately. I give a small example—small only in relation to the total problem. In my borough alone, this would provide about 100 acres of land for urban renewal purposes, with homes for about 3,000 families, or 9,000 people. Directions should be issued regarding air space rights for municipal housing by building on decks, specifically at such places as Victoria, Euston, King's Cross and St. Pancras, immediately to end the procrastination which has been going on for years under whichever Government. This would be of particular value as a contribution to solving the problem of the large and growing number of single people living in London. The problem of the single person household has been brought out by the Greve and other reports.
Fourthly, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, directions should be issued to such organisations as the gas boards and electricity

boards to release and make available within a specified period surplus property and sites for residential development, particularly when they are in the middle of residential areas needing urban renewal. There are several gas stations and power stations in the London area about which no conclusions or decisions have been taken for a long time in the past and about which there should be urgent discussions to bring them into the housing land pool.
Fifthly, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Social Services, directions should be issued to regional hospital boards to act similarly. There are many acres of land which are frozen by hospital holdings dating back many decades and which could be brought into use. This is land which has been held on speculation against need for future hospital services. In my borough—no doubt there is a similar situation in others—30 or 40 acres are standing idle because of this which could be brought into the pool for urban use, whether for housing or other purposes, providing homes for about 4,000 people if necessary.
My last major point links up with the recommendations of the Greve and Cullingworth Reports for a strategic authority. I believe that there is a strong case for developing through the G.L.C., in co-operation with the London Boroughs Association, some form of urban renewal agency which, if necessary, could use the National Building Agency and the Housing Corporation and other selected bodies as instruments for this purpose. If the G.L.C. does not co-operate on this, or, indeed, on other matters to which I have referred, the Minister should use his reserve powers under the Housing Act, 1957, to direct that authority and, if necessary should use his powers to step in himself and sponsor such an agency. I believe that after the first three years of build-up following the establishment of such a working operation, such an agency could be building 3,000 to 4,000 homes a year in addition to the local authority effort in London.
I do not put forward this programme a panacea—far be it from me. But I do put it forward as essential to developing the strategic policy of action on land assembly and development which London's homeless in the widest sense of that


term needs. A year has gone by characterised by slick public relations exercises and delays. We condemn the Government for this and call on them to act directly to implement the vital recommendations of the Greve, Cullingworth and other reports. They should act soon lest the heart of our city dies. The situation is grim, and it threatens to become grimmer still under present policies.

4.58 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move, to leave out from first 'the' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :
'legacy of homelessness and housing shortage in London inherited from the last administration ; welcomes the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government, together with the London authorities, to secure better provision for homeless people in London ; and expresses confidence in the determination of Her Majesty's Government to solve these problems as quickly as possible'.
The Opposition have launched this debate on a partisan Motion and the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) moved it in a partisan speech. I make no complaint of that. We have replied in kind. The Amendment draws attention to the legacy we inherited. Of course both parties are legatees of history in the problem of London's housing but clearly if there is to be any choice or balance as to where the heaviest responsibility lies, it is a little hard to deny that it lies more heavily on those who had six years in which to tackle the problem than on those who have only had one. [HON. MEMBERS : "Thirteen years."] We did rather well in those 13 years. I keep hearing arguments unsubstantiated that the problem has been getting worse in the last few years, not better.
But between the underlying and natural clash of opinion which arises from the two-party system, there is an appreciation on both sides, especially among London Members, that we are facing one of the most intractable problems, both social and, above all, human, because it involves individual families, that those responsible for urban policy have ever had to face. Its implications are so obvious as to be clear to the meanest intellect and felt by the hardest of hearts, but it has proved intractable to successive local and central administrations. It has baffled Governments, it has baffled

the L.C.C., it has baffled the G.L.C. and it has baffled local authorities down the years.
I think that our debate would be most useful if, speaking for the Government, I concentrated particularly on the problems facing us and their solution, but before doing so I must reply to some of the charges made by the hon. Member for Willesden, East. I confess to being astonished by the charge of delay in the Government's handling of the Greve Report. It comes particularly strangely from a member of the previous Administration.
The Labour Party issued circulars to local authorities on the subject of homelessness in 1966 and 1967 calling for reports on the problem, and it even took action on some of them. But, for some reason best known to themselves, right hon. Gentlemen opposite left the consideration of the London reports to the end. This seems rather odd as this is the most serious of all the homelessness problems. It was not until February, 1969, that the Greve Report was commissioned.
The arrangement under which it was commissioned was odd. It was not to be a specific report to the Government to be published by the Government, but a report to which the Government were to have access, for which the authors were paid, and whose auhors were to be free to publish and to have the sole copyright when publishing.
What Professor Greve has called his preliminary report was available in January, 1970, and it was seen by Ministers at that time. But it was a preliminary report, and I do not blame Ministers for not acting on it at the time. What he has called his final report was presented in early June, just before the election, and I do not know whether Ministers even had time to look at it in that period. It was in the Department, not on Ministers' desks, when the election was over.
But although Professor Greve has called it a final report, to some extent this is a misnomer, because the report as it then stood was based on 1967 figures. It took no account of the latest report, the Third Report, of the Standing Working Party on London's housing needs, nor of a good deal of other material which was available to the Department. The Department collated material which it had


and which it thought would be helpful to Professor Greve to enable him to bring his report sufficiently up to date for Ministers to be able to take action upon it. The material thus collated was passed to Professor Greve in August, 1970, that is, within a couple of months of the report being received in the Department of Health and Social Security.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said in November that he had not received the report, he was absolutely right. The Department had received what Professor Greve has chosen to call the final report, which was a report which did not take account of the Third Report of the Standing Working Party or a great deal of other material. It was not until January, 1971, that Professor Greve was able to evaluate and take account of the additional information supplied to him.
It was thus in January that we had the report for which the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) had originally asked, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Willesden, East would be the first to agree, and that the whole House would be ready to agree, that if one commissions a report, it is no use trying to act on it until one has the final report, taking account of the latest evidence available.

Mr. Freeson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the report of the Standing Working Party on London's housing needs up to 1974, the basis of which was passed to Professor Greve, was out of date by the time it was published in August last year, as is made clear in the Greve Report analysis? In view of what he is saying, would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether any recommendations or conclusions in the original report, the final report, as Professor Greve has called it, which was published last June, were changed in January as a result of the further statistical information provided by the Department?

Mr. Amery: I have no idea to what extent the hon. Member is right in saying that it is already out of date. It is certainly a good deal more out of date than the information on which Professor Greve had been working and which had been available in February, 1970.

Mr. Freeson: Answer the question.

Mr. Amery: I am answering. It was not made available to Professor Greve before he came to publish the final report. How far he took account of the additional information we gave him is his business and his affair and does not in the least invalidate what I am saying—that if one commissions a report and one gets a report based on statistical information which is not up to date, it is the duty of the Government Department concerned to provide the additional information to the person or persons making the report, and it took Professor Greve from August, 1970, to January, 1971, to make up his mind on how far the further information provided was of interest in enabling him to produce his final version.
Within a few weeks of receiving the final version, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services acted. He set up a working party. I am glad to say that it was not a question of nine months later, as the hon. Gentleman has been suggesting, but within less than a month of receiving Professor Greve's final conclusions on the inquiry with which he had been entrusted by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make this clear? I asked whether the conclusions and recommendations had been changed in January from the original report in June. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know but he now says that Professor Greve made some final conclusions in January, this year.

Mr. Amery: I must assume that, being a conscientious academic, Profesor Greve would not have sat on additional information between August and January unless he thought that there was something worth giving careful consideration to.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Department of the Environment was represented on the working party. Of course it was : it was there with the London boroughs and the Department of Health and Social Security, and the G.L.C. provided an observer. It produced its report on 27th May, that is to say, within four months of the time that the Department of Health and Social


Security received the final conclusions from Professor Greve. I do not see that there can be any charge of delay here.
The hon. Gentleman was not very friendly to the working party. He is entitled to his view. Personally I should like to pay my tribute to it for the speed with which it worked and for the substance of its report. I find myself in broad agreement with what it said and at any rate it provides a sound basis for talks with the London authorities.
The hon. Member referred to an undertaking of the party of which I have the honour to be a member. When in opposition we said that we would produce a more sensible definition of "homeless-ness". While the Labour Party was in power, the only definition available—I am not saying the Labour Party liked it or approved of it particularly, but it was the only one available—in any statistics was that an application for temporary accommodation had been received and accepted.
We thought that this was not a very sensible definition and the working party has given us a new definition. It has given the term a triple sense : first, the actual loss of a roof over the family's head ; secondly, a situation in which the loss of a roof is virtually certain ; thirdly, circumstances in which, on professional judgment, there is a serious risk of family breakdown as a result of housing needs and social stress. I do not say this is a definition on which we can rest for all time but it is one which corresponds closely to that of the Council for Social Services. It is not an academic definition but a directive for action and shows three spheres in which local authorities and central Government should work to eliminate what we call homelessness.
The working party has not been disbanded. It is turning its attention to the social services aspect of the problem and looking at the problem of the single homeless person to which Professor Greve in his book made reference although it gives little detail. It will also consider what further statistical or other studies are needed over the whole front and will produce a further report for Ministers and local authorities. Where the Greve Report and the work of the working party is concerned no charge of delay can be made.
In considering this problem of homelessness there is a paradox. London's population is by all accounts, and on all statistical information, falling. Yet the problem is no easier and, according to some authorities, it may be getting worse. How does this happen? Partly because people are marrying younger and living longer, with a resultant need for more individual homes. It may also be that the stringent rent controls applied over many years, and particularly since 1965, have reduced the number of rooms available to let. Certainly Professor Greve took that view at page 212 of his book. Whatever the precise reasons, all of us recognise that the underlying cause of homelessness, apart from psychological and human difficulties, is the simple physical shortage of houses. This is the real problem with which we have to wrestle and it is to that problem that I now turn.
The London housing shortage is very clearly defined in the standing working party report on London housing which was ready in February, 1970, although not published until July of the same year. This report is basically an assessment of housing progress between 1966 and 1969. It estimates the size of the problem in the immediate future and suggests that, if we go on as we did in 1968, Inner London will have a deficit of about 100,000 dwellings in 1974 with a further 150,000 unfit or in urgent need of improvement.
The situation is rather worse than that, since the 1968 rate of building was not maintained in 1969 or 1970. I would put the possible deficit in 1974 as high as 120,000 if we go on at the 1968 rate. The hon. Member for Willesden, East suggested that some responsibility lay with the Conservative authorities. This is a view I have heard expressed before.

Mr. Freeson: It is a fact.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a fact. I am sorry to disappoint him. I have had a look at some very interesting statistics which show the building programmes of those boroughs which changed their allegiance from Labour to Conservative. I will compare the performance of four of the boroughs with the worst housing problems in the two years immediately preceding the election year with their performance in


the two years following it. I am taking the election year as 1968. Two of those boroughs changed from a Labour to Conservative administration. They were Islington, which increased the number of houses put to tender from 2,100 to 3,000, and Lambeth which managed to increase the number for 1,350 to 2,200.
The remaining two boroughs kept their Labour administrations. Southwark managed to put only 2,850 houses to tender against 3,600 before 1968 while the Tower Hamlets figure fell from 2,000 to 1,400. Hon. Gentlemen can look around and make their own examples and they will find statistics proving almost any variation of cases they like. I am asking the House to conclude that it is totally unfair and unwise to generalise and to say that one party is more or less efficient than the other in getting houses built in the public sector.
On taking office we recognised the gravity of this situation. In July my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing and Local Government commended the Third Report of the Standing Working Party to all the London borough authorities and published it for the first time. He stressed the need to pursue a vigorous programme of public as well as private building. He urged Outer London to help Inner London. He stressed the importance of improvement grants and the setting up of housing aid centres. In October—

Mr. Scott: Does the third report take account of the loss of residential accommodation presently occurring in Central London because of the spread of hotels into what have been residential areas?

Mr. Amery: Only up to 1969. In October my right hon. Friend and I met the G.L.C. and the London Boroughs Association to lay the foundation of a common policy designed to produce the beginnings of a strategy for dealing with a problem which we thought had not as yet been effectively tackled. In April I met the leaders of the stress area boroughs to discuss the consequences and conclusions of the Francis Report. We had long deliberations from which a number of specific suggestions emerged. They are being studied in those boroughs and they have promised to report to me by October.
Since then I have called for a conference of all London boroughs and the G.L.C. to meet me to discuss these problems. I had hoped to hold the conference before the House rose, but it proved on examination that after the changes which had occurred in many boroughs after the last local elections it would be more fair to allow the new authorities time to settle down. We propose to meet in September.
The hon. Member took up suggestions made by Professors Greve and Culling-worth on the importance of setting up a regional housing authority to tackle the problem of housing in metropolitan London as a whole. I am not yet convinced that the G.L.C. has not got all the necessary powers to do this, but I am content to proceed on the basis of the old hymn "One step enough for me", and to accept Professor Cullingworth's view that the first step should be voluntary co-operation in the assessment of London's housing needs through the London boroughs, the formulation of an adequate metropolitan policy for their solution and the determination of the contribution to be made by each borough in the effective control and implementation of such a policy.
The conference I have called is not the first step towards setting up a metropolitan authority, but it will help all those concerned and central Government to work out an overall strategy for the attack on London's housing problem.

Mr. Douglas Jay: As the situation is as serious as we know it to be, could we not stop the destruction of decent, existing houses which is going on, particularly by the G.L.C. in order to build new roads in London?

Mr. Amery: The balance between communications and housing is a difficult and delicate one. It takes place to a great extent inside the Department. We try to weigh one, then the other. The problems of the capital depend not only on the circumstances of those who live there but of those who have to come in and work there. Those who live there depend on good transport to bring in supplies. The right hon. Gentleman may have particular points in mind on which he feels strongly, but I cannot give him a general reply saying that priority should necessarily go one way or the other.
There are many sectors of the battle against London's housing situation. Our information shows that there are a number of empty houses—something like 1,500 in the expanded towns, about 1,000 in East Anglia. I am glad to say that arrangements have been made by my Department and the G.L.C. to increase the flow of families from Greater London to these areas. The aim of these arrangements will be to make it easier for those who want to go to those towns and who have got jobs to go to or who do not need jobs because they are retired, regardless of whether they are on the waiting list. The G.L.C. will be discussing this with the housing associations.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: In his discussions with the local authorities and the G.L.C., will the right hon. Gentleman be re-examining' the question of densities for new development in the Inner London area?

Mr. Amery: Yes ; that will be one of the problems discussed, although it does not relate directly to the new towns.
We have discussed the question of furnished tenancies before and I do not want to go over all the ground again. There are over 200,000 furnished tenancies in London. It is very hard to say how many are permanent accommodation and how many are genuinely furnished lodgings used by a transitory population. But I stand by the view of the majority of the Francis Committee that if we were to give the same security to furnished tenancies as we give to unfurnished tenancies there would be a very serious risk of the supply of furnished tenancies drying up altogether.
There is an interesting parallel in this respect. The Milner Holland Report, in recommending the regulation of rents, the maintenance of repair standards and the establishment of security of tenure warned that measures on these lines, unless they were associated with measures to stem the loss of privately rented housing, would be "disastrous". That warning was ignored. Rent regulation and security of tenure were introduced, but nothing was done to make letting a less unattractive proposition. The result has been a continual shrinkage of the privately rented sector, the consequences of which are well illustrated by the Greve Report.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Would the Minister say whether the decline in the rented sector was accelerated by the 1965 Act, whether it had been affected by the 1957 Act or whether there had been a constant decline long before the 1965 rent regulations were introduced?

Mr. Amery: It was certainly accelerated by the 1965 Act. Professor Greve shares that conclusion, as appears from page 212 of his book. I am still trying to discover how much of the decline in rented unfurnished accommodation has gone into the furnished sector and into owner-occupation. From the evidence I have, it would seem that much the greater part has gone into the owner-occupation sector.
To follow up the flouting of the Milner Holland warning by flouting the warning given by the majority of the Francis Committee would be a rash gamble, the cost of which would be paid in years to come by the neediest people in London. Land availability is a continuing problem, especially in London. Even allowing for the potential of the docks and Covent Garden, we shall still be faced with a very big problem.
In his Circular 10/70, my right hon. Friend asked all local authorities to take steps to secure the immediate release of more land for house building and particularly to make more land available for private building. In London, this has proved a difficult task because of the general shortage of land zoned for housing and because the overall needs of the metropolis must be borne in mind before a borough can legitimately dispose of any land it does not want.
I am therefore following up the circular with a letter to each of the London borouhs asking them to let me know of any land not at present zoned for housing which they think could be better used for that purpose. I will then take further steps with my colleagues in the Department to work for its release. I am also undertaking an urgent review within central Government and with the nationalised industries and public utilities to see what land there is in London surplus to requirements which could be made available for housing.
These are all points which the hon. Member for Willesden, East raised and


about which he and his colleagues, when they were in office, did not seem to do very much.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman uncover the report which exists in the Department about which it has been impossible to get any information because it has been lost sight of and which was dealt with by the last Government concerning surplus British Railways land in 1965–66? There seems to be no way of getting information about it from the right hon. Gentleman's Department.

Mr. Amery: I will look into that point. It may be that it has got lost—like the report which the Leader of the Opposition got so excited about on Tuesday.
The G.L.C. has mounted an availability survey at the request of the Inquiry Panel into the Greater London Development Plan. All these considerations will form part of our discussions at the September conference with the London boroughs. But the essence of the problem lies in improving existing houses and saving them from becoming slums. Here I believe that our reform of housing finance will prove a shot in the arm. Landlords will have an incentive to improve their houses while at the same time tenants will be protected against any hardship by the rent allowances proposed. There has already been a substantial upswing in slum clearance in the first part of this year compared with the first part of last year, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will, I hope, be able to give the relevant figures when he winds up the debate. Our proposals for housing finance will give a shot in the arm to slum clearance.
It is quite wrong to think that in an area of stress like London there will be a setback to the building of council houses. On the contrary, London authorities which want to build more council houses will have my full support and will benefit. One of the chief effects of the new subsidy arrangements will be to increase the financial help which the Government give to boroughs with severe housing problems which are having to subsidise the provisions of council housing very heavily from their general rate fund. The exact effect will vary from borough to borough, but in some

cases the burden on the rates could be reduced by as much as 40 or 50 per cent. Perhaps more important, that burden will no longer continue to grow at the frightening rate which was occurring under the old arrangements.
But it is not only—perhaps not mainly—in council housing that a solution must be sought. It is perhaps above all in new building for private ownership and in the extension of home ownership. Here the measures we have already announced for encouraging home ownership and facilitating mortgages will play their part. There is an upward trend in the building or private houses all over the country. The upward trend in the number of starts in the private sector has been very marked in Greater London. There has been a fundamental assumption, on which we have all agreed, that Inner London and Outer London must work together and the building of new houses in Inner and Outer London will help to facilitate solving the overall problem.
The building of new houses by all agencies will produce a fresh elasticity throughout the London housing market and thus help to ease the overall problem. I believe that the combination of our policies for the encouragement of home ownership, for the improvement of existing property, for the reform of housing finance and for the acceleration of slum clearance will, with the cooperation of the London boroughs and the Greater London Council, enable us to make a major inroad into this the most intractable of our social problems.
But I do not think that we should leave the matter there. After all, London is one of the greatest capitals—I think the greatest capital—in the world. It has 2,000 years of history behind it. It attracts people from every continent. It will be a great European capital. But so often great capitals present an ugly contrast between wealth and squalor. We must resolve not to allow that contrast to develop in London and, where it exists, to knock it on the head. We must resolve to overcome this grim, social and human problem, and I believe that the steps on which the Government have embarked will make their contribution to that end.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert GrantFerris): I remind the House that there


is just an hour left for back-bench speeches. The conclusions which hon. Members will draw from that are too obvious for me to emphasise.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I am exceedingly grateful for the opportunity to participate in this short debate, and I promise to be brief. I will not use some of the material which I intended to use, in the hope that as many Members as possible who wish to speak will be able to do so. I would dearly love to take up some of the Minister's remarks, but I shall try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Monday and perhaps deal with them in greater detail then. I shall confine myself today to making some remarks on the homeless and homeless families.
I start with the very important question of the definition of need. This has become more and more confused in recent months by various reports. I do not think people, certainly in my locality of north St. Pancras and the London Borough of Camden generally, are too worried about who produced this report or continued with that one, who commissioned this and who did that. That does not make one bit of difference to them. Most of them are very interested in the problem itself, and it is to that I hope, we shall devote most of our time in this short debate. The question of definition is extremely important, not just an abstract, academic exercise, because it will determine need and also how we use the resources available to help solve the problem. Camden, which is the local authority I know best, has 9,000-plus on the waiting list, and a council like that has the necessity of narrowing the definition and the meaning of homeless-ness to families who are actually without roofs over their heads. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact of life.
The Catholic Housing Aid Society and Shelter, and many other organisations, have gone much further in their definition and I would agree that a wider and more realistic definition would be along those lines as those organisations have defined them, and would include the young married couple who cannot even live in the same house together. Then there is the well known problem of the large family so overcrowded that they must dismantle the bed to make room to set

up a table. That is not unknown in inner London. I would agree with the wider definition as outlined by the Catholic Housing Aid Society and Shelter and others. At this stage there is a necessity for Camden and for other local councils to narrow the definition to deal with the huge problem we have on our hands.
I move quickly on to the causes. The Minister has quite rightly said that the major, the prime, cause of overcrowding is insufficiency of good houses at reasonable rents. That could be the basis of a half-hour speech about what the present Government's policy is doing about that situation. We can say that their policies will have exactly the opposite effects from those which we desire.
Camden lacks something like 30,000 units, either new or improved dwellings, to deal with its own immediate problem ; in that one borough there is a deficiency of 30,000 dwellings. I quote Camden because I know it exceedingly well. I have lived there for over 37 years. The ironical thing is that improvement, however good it is, in that borough or in other Inner London boroughs, produces only more homelessness. The side effect of improved housing is the question of densities. As we improve housing and improve standards, in most areas we reduce densities and create overspill. This is an exceedingly difficult problem, which exacerbates the problem of homelessness. The basic cause is lack of land. This was mentioned both by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) and the Minister. It is the lack of land in Inner London.
It is just not good enough to say that we can filter out the excess population into Greater London and to other areas, because that in itself has many drawbacks. All of us who have people coming to us in our advice services know those who plead with us, "For heaven's sake, can't you do something to get us back into Inner London?" We cannot move people around as though they were draughts on a board. They do not want to pay increased fares travelling between Outer London and Inner London to work, for instance. Moving people out has many drawbacks. It is a glib policy to say, "We have been able to move people about". That policy is a failure in many instances.
Another aspect with which I am particularly concerned is the balance within the socio-economic groups left in inner London as a result of the movement of population. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, I know, have sincere feelings about this, and we are all concerned about the kind of balance which is left in Inner London in areas like Camden, Westminster, Paddington, Islington, as a result of previous policies by both Governments and all councils. I exempt none of them. For example, in Camden we have more than the average of managerial and professional people. We have probably our fair share of semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, although we have a grave deficiency of skilled manual workers. There is a deficiency in non-manual workers and of the self-employed, and they are necessary ingredients to a balanced community. This must be something which bothers us all.
If London's population is declining it will be difficult to maintain even the existing balance, and there will be a greater demand on the social services and rent and rate rebate schemes in future as a result of this Government's policies being followed.
So there must be some kind of solution based on land use. This calls for the maximum use of the sterile railway lines, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East, and a reexamination of the density position. We are particularly vulnerable in Camden. Having said that there should be a reexamination of densities I know that I shall call down denunciation upon my head, as I have before over several years, because of the conflict which there is between the preservationists, who are determined to maintain open spaces such as there are at Hampstead Heath, Witan-hurst, and Branch Hill, and many other places, and people in great need of homes. I have a great deal of sympathy with the preservationists. There are areas where there are 10 houses per acre and a maximum of 30 persons per acre. There is a conflict between the preservationists and people in, for instance, the southern part of the borough where there are 200 people to the acre. Thus there is an argument for a re-examination of densities, certainly in some Inner London boroughs.
I want to mention very briefly the question of furnished accommodation which, in my area, accounts for over 23 per cent. of households. Contrary to popular belief, those people are by no means fly-by-nights, or people who just move around. On the contrary, they are people who have lived there for two years, at least, and some of them for much longer. This is where I differ in the main from the majority of the Francis Committee, which semed to infer that some of these families were birds of passage, who just flutter from borough to borough. This is quite untrue in Camden. They live in these furnished places because they have no other choice. It is as simple as that. There are some who need that kind of accommodation, and even that sort of accommodation is dwindling. I cannot support the majority view of the Francis Committee. It is well known that I support the minority view put forward by a member of Camden Council. To that extent, perhaps, I have a vested interest in the minority report. I welcome it, nevertheless, as being, if not a more honest, a more accurate reappraisal of the situation of furnished accommodation in inner London.
The majority view of the Francis Committee that these families move around is not true. On the contrary, they are at perpetual risk of becoming homeless. In my locality in 128 known cases in 1970 that risk became a reality. These people were rendered homeless and local authority housing had to be provided. This year there have been 132 evictions from furnished accommodation in Camden, and those people have had to be dealt with by the housing department, the social services department and so on. These figures do not include cases dealt with by the social services department under the National Assistance Act. In the main these are people who had been evicted from furnished accommodation. Seldom were they evicted for the nonpayment of rent. The reasons for eviction were usually the sale or development of the property to provide a bigger investment, or the improvement of the property, which causes great problems. This bears heavily not only on single persons but also on immigrant families who usually have to go into furnished accommodation in the first place.
If a housing and social and welfare problem exists anywhere, it is in Camden. We have the main line stations, and we are close enough to Paddington and Marylebone to be affected by the southward drift of population. I cannot divorce this drift from the Government's general economic policies, and I anticipate a worsening of the situation. People come from areas where there are houses but no jobs into areas where there are no houses but where there may be jobs.
The status of the homeless is another aspect which must be considered. The provisions of the National Assistance Act, 1948, were designed to deal with emergencies caused by unforeseen circumstances, and no one can say that the present housing shortage was unforeseen. Those provisions have created a vast army of second-class citizens who live for long periods in temporary accommodation known as Part III, or sometimes Stage 2. The application of those provisions has created in our midst the hopelessness which all hon. Members will have met when confronted by these unfortunate people. Homelessness, except for a minority of problem families, is the result of losing out in this highly competitive society. The least clever have the worst luck, and for their failure they are set apart, until society is prepared to grant them the right to enjoy living in a normal community. The segregation of homeless families, even just for a few months and with the full benefits of the assistance of professional and social workers creates an impression of punishment. The sooner homeless families are regarded as needing decent housing accommodation, the sooner we shall be on the road to enabling them to bring up their children as self-reliant citizens.
I have outlined some of the problems affecting inner London and Camden, and I hope that the Minister will reply on the problem of homlessness and leave Monday's debate as a separate issue. I hope that he will have in mind the drift to London being caused by the economic policies of the Government and that he will ask his right hon. Friends to rethink their policies in the light of what we have said.

Mr. Allason: On a point of order. As a disinterested spectator, I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact

that the speech we have just heard lasted for 18 minutes and that there are many other hon. Members wishing to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order. Had the hon. Gentleman not raised a point of order which is not a point of order, I intended to draw the attention of the House to that very point. As this is a short debate, I hope that hon. Members will restrict themselves as far as they feel able to do so in the interests of their fellow Members.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: Hon. Members will agree that housing and homelessness problems in London cause more misery to our constituents than any other matter. Homelessness and housing problems probably cause hooliganism and delinquency, and many other social problems can be traced back to housing conditions.
Logically, there are three ways of reducing the amount of homelessness : first, by building more houses ; secondly, by improving the houses we have ; thirdly, by persuading people to move out of London to new towns. I would add a fourth way, which is by giving more information on housing to people who live in London. I want to dwell specifically on this narrow issue of trying to relieve some of our housing problems by giving more information. I do so because the Borough of Lambeth, part of which I have the honour to represent, has an outstanding record in this direction. A Housing Advisory Centre was started in Lambeth in May of last year. It has just completed a year and an analysis of the results can now be made, so that we have an idea of how well it has worked.
The total number of inquiries in the year was over 27,000, of which about 11,000 were in the first half and 16,000 in the second half. We can see that as the centre as become known more people have gone along to get advice. The daily average for the first six months was 86 people and for the second six months 125. The largest single group was seeking to get on the council's housing list. Some 2,000 inquiries were made about moving out of London, which I find encouraging. Nearly 3,000 inquiries were made about


the availability of council mortgages—which I am sure Members on both sides of the House will find encouraging. The number of mortgages taken up in 1969 was 24, and in 1970 it rose to 80. Although this is a quite small number, it is encouraging and must be a direct result of the good work of the Housing Advisory Centre.
About 1,000 inquiries were made about improvement grants and a high proportion of those inquiries resulted in the provision of grants. If I tell the House that in 1969 some 210 improvement grants were approved, that in 1970 the figure rose to very nearly 400, and that in the first five months of 1971 the number of such grants almost equalled the number for the whole of 1970, it will be seen that the work of the Housing Advisory Centre is beginning to bear fruit.
I believe I am right in saying that Lambeth is the first borough to form a link with a development area. A Peterborough Week was held in March and April this year and it was extremely successful. I should like to tell the House a great deal more about that experiment, but I will keep my remarks short since I know that many others wish to contribute to this debate. Suffice it to say that this experiment has already resulted in some removals from Lambeth to Peterborough.
I conclude by saying that the action taken by the Borough of Lambeth in giving advice to people on how to set about solving their housing problems has been extremely successful. I know that other boroughs are undertaking similar work, and I hope that the Ministry will encourage these efforts in every way. Anything that can be done in this direction will be helpful in solving the problems of the homeless.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: As a Member of Parliament for Lambeth, I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton). However, I warn the Government Front Bench not to attach too much importance to the housing advisory centre since it will not make a major contribution to solving housing problems. What is happening in Lambeth is that the waiting list is being added to

that much more quickly because people have been to the advisory centre. Such a body may solve some part of the problem but is not a complete answer.
We all have our own particular solutions for trying to solve the housing problem, and to some extent it has defied the initiative of both parties. It is true that rent control leads to less housing being available for letting, and also leads to more furnished accommodation. In some cases it has led to accommodation becoming more decrepit. Multi-occupation legislation, which has been helpful in some respects, leads to people being driven out of controlled areas into areas where there is no control. Falling population is at the same time linked to increased housing problems. This is a paradox in London which has defied both parties.
There are one or two suggestions I should like to make which I hope will contribute to solving some of the problems of homelessness and bad housing. In my own borough are large blighted areas near the town centre. Some are in action areas but have not yet been dealt with under the London Development Plan. Therefore, people cannot sell their houses and are allowing them to deteriorate. These houses have too short a life to be improved by the local authority and tend to go over to furnished accommodation. Various Ministers have been to see some of these houses in my constituency, and the local authority ought to acquire many of those houses, even if it lets them as substandard houses, I would rather they were let as sub-standard to two families than as sub-standard to four families. Every encouragement must be given to local authorities to do this sort of thing in areas of blight by buying such properties from owner occupiers. If this is done more widely the problem may not be so bad as it is at present.
The second matter that I wish to mention arises out of what I hear from people who attend my advice bureau. A young married couple go into furnished accommodation with one child, they soon find a second child on the way and it is even more difficult for them to seek unfurnished acommodation in which they can build their own home. A further complication is that the wife stops working and the financial situation


becomes worse. A third child is born and very often the woman undergoes treatment for mental stress. When finally a fourth child comes along there is a real dilemma for that family. I feel that some kind of domiciliary family planning service should be made available to such a family.
The family would not have to take the advice it was given. I do not want to offend any religious feelings but I feel that any advice that could be given to help a young couple of the sort I have described would help to ease the situation. As more and more children come along the chances of finding unfurnished accommodation grow less and less. One feature that is graphically brought out by the Greve Report is the increase in the number of homeless families with four or more children.
Another matter which is mentioned in the Greve Report—I mentioned this in our debate on 15th February—is the need for a central housing authority. Subsidies are not necessarily the answer. A feature of the London housing situation is that those authorities with the biggest deficit on revenue account and with the biggest housing stress are generally the authorities which do the most to build houses to help the homeless. The authorities which do not have deficits and have plenty of land and money to help are often those which tend to do least. Lambeth and Southwark have big deficits and yet they go on building. Places like Bexley, Sutton and Croydon do not have such deficits and they have not very large housing programmes.
I feel that the answer is to have a central housing authority for the whole of London. It is a pity that my own Government when in office did not do anything about this matter. We sat on this question for far too long. Unless we treat the problem as a whole and, instead of having 32 fragmented areas, have one central directing body with a central strategy and with building powers we shall never solve the problem. We have to take people from Southwark to Bromley ; we must take people from Lambeth to Croydon ; we must take people from Camden to Sutton, and so forth. We must do all we can to ease the situation. Since the Greater London Council does not do the job, we need to set up a central authority.
A matter which was mentioned in a minority recommendation in the Francis Report and is also dealt with in the Greve Report is the necessity to give more security to furnished tenants. This is a dilemma, for there is a risk that if too much security is given the supply of furnished accommodation may dry up. However, it is a risk worth taking. People who let furnished accommodation will probably do so in any case, and it is the question of security with which we should be concerned.
If such accommodation does dry up, the answer is public ownership. Let us not dodge this issue. Large areas of furnished accommodation are in twilight areas and are often owned by absentee landlords. I do not refer to the woman who lets a room furnished in her own house ; I refer to accommodation which is let as an investment. Such property is often controlled by absentee landlords, and where security is not being given to tenants in areas with housing problems I do not see why local authorities should not be forced to step in and requisition property and impose a fair rent system so that the property may be run in a proper way.
This policy would help families to put together the nucleus of homes of their own. One difficulty experienced by people in furnished accommodation is that they never get together anything they can call their own. Many of these families are not fly-by-night, transient people. They are the permanent occupiers of large parts of London and are increasing in number. They must be given some underlying security and guarantee that they will pay only a fair rent for that property. Fair rent legislation for furnished tenants will not work so long as, automatically, they give themselves six months' notice to quit when they apply to a rent tribunal. It would be better to have a fair rent system, which in some cases would be fairer to landlords, coupled with security of tenure. Then we could begin to make inroads into the problem.
The third point which I wish to raise is that we ought to accept the recommendation of the Greve Report that we need more houses in London. That can be done only by reverting to the question of a central housing authority and making sure that houses are built in those


areas which have plenty of land available or which at least have more opportunities for building than the inner London stress areas. This has to be done by direction. So far, encouragement by both parties has failed. Where it has failed, action must be taken.
If that is not done, not only are we sacrificing people's housing chances ; we shall also destroy a generation. We shall destroy the opportunities that our good schools offer people. It is no use giving educational opportunities when there is social deprivation in our homes. There are many disappointments in the London education system. The reason is that no matter how good the educational opportunities are, with social and home deprivation of this kind, the opportunities cannot be realised.
I hope that the Government will give more attention to the recommendations of the Greve and the other reports. Let us see strong action in favour of the homeless, not soon but now.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: It is a great pleasure to be called immediately following the speech of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), and to follow up a number of the points he made.
The subject that we are debating is a basic one for hon. Members on both sides, although our approaches may be different. As the hon. Gentleman said, we cannot improve education standards if children come from deprived homes, deprived not necessarily because of the families but because of the circumstances in which they are brought up, which make their lives intolerable and impossible.
That is why we have to beware of the easy answer, because we so much want an easy answer. We should like to be able to say that all that one needs to do is to redefine what homelessness means or to say that there is a great deal of land available in some mystic place. But even with regard to land availability in certain Outer London boroughs, we know, for example, how much land the Land Commission found in Croydon. It found under 10 acres. It may not have looked very hard. It

may be that it got the figures wrong. That does not suggest that there is an enormous amount of land available. However, it indicates clearly that we should use what land there is as effectively and as quickly as possible.
For that reason, I hope that one of our first actions will be to see that land becomes available very much faster than it does at the moment. There is a great deal of land in the pipeline which the Ministry could release much more quickly than it does at present. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to look at this point, as well as at the present allocations of density throughout London. In many areas, reallocations could be made.
In addition, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reconsider the arrangements under which demolition takes place today. It is quite wrong that someone should be able to pull down a house in London without any by-your-leave except for 12 or 14 days' notice pinned to his neighbour's door. Such an arrangement is unacceptable in a situation where, very often, after he has pulled down the house, he gets planning permission for a commercial development that he would have been refused had he sought it while the house was standing.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House must try to get away from the argument which makes hon. Members on this side talk about private development and hon. Members opposite talk about public development. The need in London is for more houses, provided by private developers, in the public sector, and in the in-between area of housing associations.
If we are to tackle the problem realistically, we have to ask ourselves whether the present situation, in which we sterilise large numbers of homes because at the moment they are council houses and have council tenants, is the answer to the problem of those who are most in need. I wonder whether we should not look at the possibility of arranging our affairs in London so that the council house building programme becomes a dynamic rather than the static management arrangement that it is so often. Too many councils are largely concerned with managing the homes that they have already. Often there are people living in them who, given the right opportunities,


perhaps would wish to find accommodation that they owned. The answer might be for them to buy the houses which they occupy now, or to buy other houses built by private developers. If we have not enough homes for people to buy and we continue forcing up the cost of homes in London by artificially restricting the number built, it is difficult to see how we can solve the problem. I should like us to look again at the holding of council houses with a view to seeing whether we cannot meet the real need. Is it right for people today to be badly housed for a whole generation, while others hold on to accommodation which they have grown out of, with three or four-bedroom houses which they no longer fully occupy?
If that is true in the public sector, it is also true in the private sector. That is why I support the recommendations of the Francis Committee. It is a little odd that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) should have referred to practically every report on the subject except the Francis Report. He did not refer to it, of course, because it was not convenient. It did not fit in with his argument. I hope that we shall consider all these reports together and not be selective because certain of them fit in with our prejudged political arguments.
If the Francis Report is to mean anything, we have to encourage widows and others who have unwanted accommodation and would like to let part of it by providing the means for them to do it without involving themselves in a situation which makes it impossible for them to live reasonable lives should they find their tenants unsatisfactory.
We in London shall not solve the housing problem by belly-aching about hon. Members on one side building too many council houses and hon. Members on the other side building only private houses. In London we have to see that we build as many houses as we can as rapidly as possible. Having done so, we must give the people of London the opportunity of knowing where those houses are, and we must provide them with the opportunity to buy, if possible, and to rent fairly, if necessary. We must not be content with a situation in which large areas are sterilised and people who desperately need homes are deprived. Our answer

in London is to provide more homes in every sector.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. John D. Grant: I begin by taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), who referred to the social deprivation caused by bad housing conditions. We are talking about a crisis in housing. It is a long-standing one, but a crisis none the less. Decent housing will do more than anything else ultimately to achieve the reduction in spending on the social services which the Government are so anxious to make.
If we had decent housing, it would help alleviate the problems of crime and delinquency, those of wrecked marriages and ill-health, and probably the prejudices which are aroused by the inequalities caused by bad housing conditions. It would be interesting to know, for example, how many of the man-hours and how much of the productivity lost can be traced back to the root cause of bad housing.
The plain fact is that we do not spend enough of our gross national product on housing. In this respect we compare badly with other countries. I think it would be very much in line with the Government's "one nation" theme to free us from the kind of injustices which we have heard described in the debate.
I cannot accept the Government's line about subsidies only for those in need as the way to keep down our overall expenditure on housing. That seems to be the message of the White Paper which will be discussed next week. If the Government want to provide decent homes for all those in need at a price which they can afford, they cannot contemplate cutting back on the overall figure of expenditure for housing. We must spend more. It is no answer to say that we cannot afford it. I do not believe that we can afford not to do it.
The Minister said that the Inner London boroughs should gain considerably from the new subsidies for slum clearance. I hope that that will prove to be the case. We shall see. But the vast majority of council house tenants, certainly in my constituency, will face rocketing rent rises as a result of the policies which the Government are anxious to pursue. I think that is the


path to further inflation, which they have pledged to curb. I share the view that cash aid through subsidies alone cannot solve the problems of the Inner London boroughs.
I should like to give one or two examples of overcrowding. The Greve Report referred to Islington as having the highest proportion of families in London in shared accommodatoin—57·4 per cent. I regard it as a scandal and an indictment of this nation and of Governments past and present that that situation should still be prevalent in 1971.
A recent survey in North-East Islington, which took in part of my constituency, Highbury, has been published by Shelter. It was the work of one of the local community workers. That survey showed that only 43 per cent. of the households surveyed had their own hot water and only 18 per cent. had an inside lavatory. That, again, helps to illustrate the gravity and seriousness of the problem in that part of London. I do not believe that any solution or, at best, only a partial solution, is to be found within the framework of the White Paper, whatever it may say about subsidies for slum clearance and for council and private tenants.
We come back to the problem of the chronic shortage and price of land, which was particularly stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). In passing, I should like to mention a subject which I hope that the Minister will take up in his reply. My borough council is gravely concerned about the current handicap of the building cost yardstick because it believes that it is impeding its own housing efforts.
I should also like to mention the series which has been running in the Evening News called "Heartbreak Homes". It has been an excellent series based on Pimlico, but I have a similar problem currently obtaining in Canonbury where long-established tenants are under considerable pressure to quit their homes which are then sold at inflated prices or let at much higher rents. Either way, the tenants who will occupy those properties will not be from the low-income groups in the borough ; they will be people coming in from outside who are able and willing to pay the kind of profits which landlords

and private developers are seeking. The lower-income group tenants in that area who might otherwise qualify for the Government's new rebate scheme will not get a sniff at it. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind. These landlords may not be in breach of the law, but they are doing nothing to ease the pressure on housing in my borough.
The Greve Report pointed out that there was no coherence in London housing. It mentioned that homelessness in Inner London was up by 156 per cent. in eight years and that the Inner London problem was utterly out of line with anything happening throughout the rest of Britain.
I come back to the suggestion in the Greve Report of a central housing agency, which many hon. Members have supported. I think that is right. The Minister should set up such a body without further delay and give it powers to direct specific local authorities to build in certain areas—particularly outer London areas. I make no bones about it. I believe that encouragement has manifestly failed over a long period. Therefore, we must have compulsory methods to get the Outer London boroughs to accept their proper share of responsibility for London's housing problems.
The Prime Minister had a great deal to say before the General Election about "one nation". I take it that that included housing. I have not heard him say very much, if anything, about housing since the election. That may be because he represents an Outer London, not an Inner London, borough. If he really wants to get to grips with this problem and achieve one nation, he might make a start by making one nation out of both Inner and Outer London.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: I should like to take up the point about the series in the Evening News entitled "Heartbreak Homes" which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant). It is no part of an M.P.'s job to pillory innocent people, to presume that people are guilty until they are proved innocent, or anything of that nature. The Evening News has made some serious allegations about my constituency and has named two companies,


Central Estates (Belgravia) Limited and John Haskins & Co. We in Westminster are awaiting an answer from those companies justifying the activities which have been reported in the Evening News or pointing out in what regard that newspaper has been mistaken. As of now, we are deeply concerned about the allegations which have been made because they show how, apparently within the law, it is often possible for unscrupulous landlords to harass and pursue poor, low-income tenants so that they have to leave their homes and cannot take advantage of their legal rights.
I was much encouraged by an answer which I received from the Minister for Housing and Construction, who drew attention to the fact that if tenants are put under pressure by the use of fictitious schedules of dilapidations, the question of prosecution under the Theft Act, 1968, might properly be referred to the appropriate authority. This was a matter of which most people were unaware. I should like to know whether it is the responsibility of individuals who feel that they are the subject of fictitious schedules of dilapidations to bring the prosecutions or whether, when evidence is put before the Minister, the Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for bringing these prosecutions. I should also like to know whether the Government can do more to keep tenants, especially poorer tenants, informed about their rights so that when they are faced with these frightening legal letters by people with strings of initials after their names calling on solicitors and so on they are able to seek advice without having to fork out large sums in legal fees.
Apart from the terrible things about which I have been speaking, Westminster has some of the best landlords in the country. It has firms with a high sense of social responsibility which have done a great deal to make our capital the beautiful and prosperous place that it is. I know from my correspondence that the majority of landlords and agents deeply deplore activities such as those reported in the Evening News. They realise that great harm is being done to their profession by an unscrupulous minority which is causing hardship. I should like to know what more can be done for those in our society who most need protection.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Roland Moyle: It is very pleasant, in the first debate in which both the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) and I have intervened, to find ourselves in such a large measure of agreement, although there are one or two points on the Francis Committee on which I do not think I can follow him.
In opening the debate the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps speaking from the advantage of Brighton Pavilion, apart from a few light-hearted party quips, spoke in philosophical vein and talked about the intractable nature of the problem. I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman entirely in his homespun philosophy. He is paid to make the problem tractable, and if we go forward on that basis we shall have a much happier time during the next couple of years than if we talk too much about intractability.
I should like the Government to reconsider the minority report of the Francis Committee. Particularly when it comes to the protection of furnished dwellings, Miss Lyndal Evans has been somewhat maligned in the general and popularised discussion of the report. It has been said that she just wants rent control and security of tenure for furnished premises. That is not entirely true. If that were to happen, there would be a reduction in the number of furnished premises available, because a number of people who let off a portion of their homes as furnished dwellings would withdraw them from the market.
Miss Evans wants security of tenure for tenants living in large blocks commercially let off as furnished premises. I do not think that if those were controlled there would be a reduction, because the landlords have purchased those properties with a view to putting them on the market and getting rents for them as furnished premises. If they do not let them in that way there is no alternative use for them. They would therefore accept security of tenure and press ahead.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Would the hon. Gentleman perhaps confirm that that sort of furnished property is becoming prevalent in Inner London, particularly in my constituency, where large blocks of mansion flats are being


let continually on short lease of three months, one month, a week, or even a day, and thus moving towards becoming hotels? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that what is needed is not so much control as a change in the terms of leases so that the problem can be dealt with?

Mr. Moyle: I do not have time to go into that, but they would probably be kept as furnished tenancies in one form or another for the occupant, and some control has to be exercised.
I now propose to say something about the problems of an Inner London borough such as Lewisham, part of which I represent, and perhaps explain what a borough housing problem means. We have 7,000 families on the waiting list in Lewisham, 4,000 of whom have some degree of urgency. I should be one of the first to say that the solution of the problem in the London boroughs does not lie in terms of finance and subsidy, but the fact is that if we do not get the money we shall not solve the problem.
We are now rebuilding houses at the rate of about 1,200 a year, and it looks as though we shall keep up that pace, because we are more or less rebuilding Deptford. Although we are doing that, and although the subsidy from the Exchequer is estimated to be about £1,300,000, we shall have a deficit on our housing account of about £1,400,000. There are three-bedroomed houses in Lewisham to let at rents of £8·50 a week, which is a fantastically high rent. I have not had a chance to work out what the subsidies under the White Paper mean for the borough, but it seems that about £3 million a year will be required if we are to press ahead with the redevelopment of Deptford at the pace that we hope to do it.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for introducing the London Government Act, 1963. They were responsible for stopping the G.L.C. being a housing authority. They have to put something in its place because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) said, we must have an area housing authority, or an area housing policy. Conferences of London boroughs will not do any good. To put it crudely and bluntly, we must have Government action. What we in

Lewisham want is to be able to get our hands on the sylvan glades of Bexley, Bromley, Beckenham, Croydon and places like that and to get our surplus population in the north of Lewisham and Deptford into those areas.
If there is difficulty in finding land, there is a simple solution. I am not talking about suburban areas that are conservation areas. In those areas that I have mentioned there are large houses with large back gardens. They could be compulsorily purchased, knocked down and developed at a fantastically high density compared with what they are now. That sort of determined effort must be made if we are to solve the housing problems of places like Lewisham, Lambeth and Southwark.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I do not have time to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) in some of the points that he made. I shall confine myself to three specific issues.
I maintain that if we are to have a decent quality of life in Central London it must be possible for a balanced community to go on living there. I put a slightly different emphasis on the issue from that put on it by my right hon. Friend. I maintain that we cannot regard Inner and Outer London as one, with total flexibility within it because, if there were an exodus from Central London of skilled workers to the new towns, and of middle-income groups to the suburbs, we would be left in Central London with waiters and stockbrokers. That would lead not to a balanced community, but to social conflict and the development of a class situation which would be extremely unhealthy. We have to make a conscious effort, through policies laid down by the central Government, and by local government, to ensure that that does not happen.
I agree that we cannot solve London's housing problems simply by subsidy arrangements, however good they may be. For years we have been subsidising units of accommodation and controlling rents, but the situation has got worse. Nor do I believe that a free market in housing in Central London would solve the problem in a million years. There must be a new strategy for housing in Central London.
In particular, I am worried about the way that we have squeezed unfurnished accommodation until, to all intents and purposes, it does not exist in my constituency. If we were to put in security of tenure for furnished accommodation we would be in danger of squeezing that, too. Already the supply of furnished accommodation in my constituency is being squeezed, and being squeezed most of all by the process mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) ; namely, the extension of hotels. This is frequently done by a creeping and gradual process under which furnished accommodation becomes short-stay accommodation, then becomes nightly furnished accommodation, then becomes an annexe to an hotel, and eventually is incorporated into the hotel, sometimes with no planning consent being obtained. I know that the Westminster City Council is aware of this problem and is trying to cope with it, but we all have to be aware of it.
Why do we not seek to divert more of our resources into houses in the city? I know that this is part of the aim of the White Paper, but it will fail in central London because we do not have unfurnished accommodation. The reason for that is that we concentrate so much on the furnished sector. Why not look again at the possibility of giving people prepared to invest in the provision of unfurnished accommodation a depreciation allowance on their investment, provided that they are prepared to conform to certain management standards with their property and adopt rent policies which follow a code of practice that has been set down by the central Government? In that way we could get extra resources into extra unfurnished accommodation in our city centres, and that would be a great step forward.
When property comes on the market, housing associations are at a disadvantage because they can buy only at the valuation of the local authority. A private landlord can afford to pay more because of the improvement in value that is likely to come over the next two or three years. As the chairman of a voluntary housing association, I continually find that we are 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. below the price that the private landlord is able to pay. The local authority is not allowed to make up that difference

to us so that we can obtain the accommodation and use it to cope with the homeless in our area.
One point that has not been mentioned—it may be that it is special to Paddington and St. Marylebone—is that of the homeless young. I am referring to the groups of young people who come into London from outside, or come into a family conflict situation, and sleep rough in cafes, travelling the tubes at night. Sooner or later, we shall have to encourage local authorities to provide more hostel accommodation for these young people. Otherwise, we shall be building up a real social problem for ourselves in the years ahead.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) spoke a great deal of good sense about furnished properties becoming hotels. My constituency is not far from his and suffers the same problem. But he should be careful about arguing the case from the point at which he left it. Some control of furnished premises would make it more difficult to get tenants out and hand the premises over to hotels. We cannot take the argument too far tonight, but perhaps he should re-examine it and see whether he is not nearer to our position than he thinks.
To have only two and a half hours for a debate like this is most unsatisfactory. I suppose that this is the first time that two former leaders of local authorities in Inner London and two hon. Members who were housing chairmen at exactly the same time 15 years ago are presenting the case on London housing.
We are not very satisfied with the Government's attitude. The Minister did not think they did too badly in their 13 years. But I am interested in the four boroughs that he chooses as examples of the period 1965–71. Southwark is always chosen. I served on that authority, and I used to draw the facts to the attention of his right hon. Friend.
The Minister was not correct when he said that Southwark cut back on housing starts. It was developing a programme of 2,000 completions over five years, and at present it has 5,500 houses under construction. Over the five-year period it did not cut back but was assembling the land.


It housed 4,500 families last year. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to repeat this point, which is not true.
I have many reservations about committees and working parties. The Minister referred to the First Report of the Joint Working Party, which contains the following passage in paragraph 32:
We have so far concluded that families without roofs must be secured accommodation if they do not for any reason have it and that, subject to professional decisions about the desirability of receiving children into care and to the condition that 'secure' does not always mean 'provide', the accommodation should be a family dwelling.
I do not know what that means. A joint working party should not talk mumbo-jumbo like that. I know many of the people serving on it and I find it extraordinary that they should make that sort of parlous comment, which means virtually nothing.
I urge the Minister not to rely too much on that information. He will recall how we started, in London particularly. The 1957 Rent Act was the beginning of the problems of London. It was argued that it would solve all the housing problems. Lord Brooke argued forcefully that it was the panacea, that once we decontrolled and landlords were able and willing to provide more accommodation at reasonable rents, local authorities would need to be only the supporting bodies.
The subsidies were reduced to zero. The only subsidies given were for slum clearance. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) and I argued what was happening in London, but the Minister refused to listen. We kept chasing the present Secretary of State for Social Services all those years, but the Conservative Government refused to listen.
The Conservative Government set us the Milner Holland Committee in 1964, we gave evidence to it, and we were present when the report came before the House. These facts live in the memories of people who have been hurt in London by the policy that the Conservatives pursued. We can set up Cullingworth, Francis, Greve and other Committees but at the end of the day they all come to the same conclusion—that we must build more homes. Every hon. Member has made exactly the same point. I do not

know how many more committees we shall need to tell us that. Build more houses is precisely what we have not done.
The right hon. Gentleman nodded sagely just now, so I suppose he agrees that we must build more homes. At a Press conference recently he spoke for what amounted to 12 column inches about private home building and right at the end added the six words :
Council house building, however, remains static.
This is deplorable, and shows what we are complaining about. This is the sort of priority that the Minister gives, and it is causing us a great deal of concern.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to try to do something about this, and to understand that if one is to build more homes one has to do much more than the Government are doing.

Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I was not advocating that it should remain static. I was giving a progress report to the private house builders about the progress in the private sector. I had to report that the public sector was not doing so well.

Mr. Brown: I appreciate that. I am not being unkind to the Minister, but this seems to be his feeling. If I had been giving that Press conference I would have said, "It is a damned disgrace that we have not built more council houses". But after 12 column inches all he could report was no progress.
Without a substantial programme, the right hon. Gentleman will not solve the problem. In paragraphs 125 to 131, Cullingworth argued cogently that the housing stock of the G.L.C. should not be handed over to the boroughs. The Cullingworth Report was not published until just after the election. After all those comments in favour of no transfer, Cullingworth suddenly said that, provided that the Government were prepared to take action to bring together the G.L.C., the working party and the London Boroughs Association, it would be possible to go ahead with phase 2 of the transfer.
There is no secret that I objected—I said that the transfers were wrong at the time, and I still take the same view—but the Government did not wait to do


what Cullingworth suggested they might do first. They went haring off to produce their Orders and present them to the House without even having the courtesy to give us a chance to discuss the matter. On such an occasion, they could have argued the case and explained why they were so hastily going ahead with the transfers, although Cullingworth had made clear that, in his view, they ought not to do that but should be far more careful, able and willing to discuss the subject in greater detail in order to set up a structure which would be able to co-ordinate housing in London to achieve the purpose about which we are all concerned ; that is, the provision of more homes.
I ask the Minister to reread Cullingworth and pay particular attention to what he says in those paragraphs. The result of the Government's hasty action has been clear. He must now take it all back again because the financial arrangements come to at the time—I have always regarded them as bad—will now be put back in the melting pot as from 1st April, 1972, if the White Paper is accepted as the basis for legislation. The whole purpose of the White Paper upsets all those arrangements for transfer of those 46,000 properties. At the end of the day the Government's rush did not give any help to London. All the officers and authorities are busy trying to assimilate the properties and the tenants as well as trying to assimilate the staffs transferred, instead of paying attention to the building of more homes.
I urge the Minister strongly to examine his attitude on the transfer of the G.L.C., properties. I do not believe that he can show any evidence that it has in any way helped London's housing situation.
The attitude of the Greater London Council generally needs to be examined, also. It made some extraordinary comments on Greve. On the question of eviction by landlords, its comment was :
But it must not be assumed that in all cases the landlord is acting unreasonably.
As a comment by a local authority, that is a pretty poor effort. It is not exactly coming out with something new. On the question of eviction by parents, it made the comment :
This is by no means uncommon.

Really, the G.L.C. is not addressing itself to the problem.
Above all, the G.L.C. should be considering action to be taken to strengthen the position of tenants in furnished accommodation. If one could do that, one would eliminate some of the homeless family problems. It should examine, also, the question of action taken under various Acts of Parliament. For example, if a local authority takes action about a fire risk, if it takes action in terms of a direct management order or under the heading of multi-occupation, almost inevitably the owners will threaten to turn the tenants out. Thus, even though one tries to introduce management orders, the result in many cases is an addition to the homeless family problem rather than a move towards a solution of the housing problem.
London suffered badly from 1968 to 1970. There was complete Tory control. This has now ended. Instead of land being sold off, as happened in Islington, Hackney, Brent and elsewhere, we now have 22 Labour-controlled authorities willing and anxious to get to work. All they ask from the Government is money.
They want help to get the land from the outer areas, and help to do the job of providing more homes. Let us stop pontificating. We are talking about people now, about human situations and human problems, not statistics. Let us make sure that by straight Government action urgently taken we make life brighter for the people of London.

6.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): With the last words of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) a lot of us will agree. We are dealing here with people, and, perhaps, we have not heard quite enough about people today. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) took my right hon. Friend to task for saying that this is one of the greatest intractable problems which we have. I do not agree. I think that it is one of the most intractable problems facing us. It is an appallingly difficult problem, a problem which has so far managed to defeat successive Governments and successive local authorities, and anyone who argues to the contrary is misguided.
I first became really interested in housing—I expect that this is true of many other hon Members who have not been closely concerned with housing for as long as the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury and his hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson)—when I saw the film "Cathy Come Home".

Mr. John Fraser: As recently as that?

Mr. Channon: I am a great deal younger than the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] That was the first time I started taking a really detailed interest in the subject. I think that is probably true of the country as a whole. [Interruption.] It may be reprehensible, but it is true. I think it is true because that film showed how the homeless were facing really ghastly problems. That is what this debate is about, the sad cases which we have had described so often by people both inside the House and outside over the past few years.
In the short time available, I shall do my best to answer the points which have been raised. I cannot answer them all, and, should hon. Members feel that I have not dealt with the matters which they have raised, if they will get in touch with me I shall try to give detailed answers later.
First, I take the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) about bogus schedules of dilapidation. This is already an offence under the criminal law. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should advise people to take legal advice where they can or go to advice centres to seek advice on these problems. Having taken advice, they should then tell the local authority what the situation is. In suitable cases, the local authority may refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who may then take action.
I can tell my hon. Friend—I congratulate him on his diligence in pursuing the matter—that we are having new leaflets prepared describing people's rights in such circumstances. They will shortly be available, and if any local authority wishes to have some for distribution in its area, we shall be delighted to arrange it. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make certain that Westminster takes up that offer at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the leaflet covers the scandal of deferred purchase, which is affecting a large number of people, particularly in my constituency?

Mr. Channon: I shall consider that point, but I regard it as urgent to prepare and send out the leaflets which I have described, and I should not wish to delay that process in order to put in anything else, no matter how important. If the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) would like some of the leaflets, he should get in touch with my right hon. Friend's Department, and we shall be glad to supply them.
I agree very much with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton) and the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) about the work of the Lambeth Housing Aid Centre and the problems which it has solved. We must not overestimate what it is able to do, but I know that it has made a great deal of difference.
As hon. Members on both sides have said, what we have to do in trying to help in London's housing problems is to deal with the problem of money and the problem of land. Those are the two main factors. As one hon. Member said, we have a paradox in London. There is a declining population. Between 1951 and 1961 it fell from 8·2 million to about 8 million ; it is now down a further 100,000 or so, and it may be down another 500,000 by 1981. But, with the change in household size, the pressures on Inner London are still very great.
Homelessness is inevitably the worst feature of housing pressure in a situation such as this. I wish we had a chance—we could have had it in a debate such as this—to discuss this great social problem dispassionately and reasonably. I regret that we have had to discuss it today on a partisan Motion, a Motion which I utterly reject for its allegation that the Government have been responsible for delay in dealing with the problem.
The Report of the Standing Working Party came out in July last year, shortly after we took office. It pointed to the problem of a crude housing shortage of 100,000 dwellings and a total of 230,000 unsatisfactory dwellings. Professor Greve says that there are statistical flaws in


that argument, and that it is wrong. Whoever is right, we can all agree that it is a serious situation.
As soon as the report was received, my right hon. Friend the then Minister asked all the London boroughs to have a vigorous building programme. He impressed upon outer London the need to help and impressed upon the boroughs the need for improvement and for further housing advisory centres. My right hon. Friends have met the London boroughs and the G.L.C. I spend a large part of my time meeting the London boroughs, discussing their problems and urging them to go on with greater building programmes of all kinds, public or private.
My right hon. Friend has discussed with the boroughs the setting up of housing aid centres and the establisment of tenancy relations officers to help in the areas of stress. I hope that the boroughs will carry out the suggestions. Many of them are considering both recommendations. There are already at least three housing aid centres in London, and I hope that there will be many more. I understand that a further seven boroughs have decided to go ahead with them.
We are to have a further conference in September. I agree that conferences are no excuse for inaction, but they can help. People can come to understand each others' problems and we can discuss them and put forward proposals. Those present can consider them and make a positive contribution.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Willesden, East raised the hoary old controversy about the publication of Professor Greve's Report [Interruption.] In that case, he raised the question of delay. I do not believe that any other hon. Member has followed him on that point, and it is not worth wasting time dealing with the matter. I have set out the position in full far too often.
It is very strange that the whole matter was arranged as it was in the first place, and I regret it. We have done what we can to press ahead. I am very sorry that in spite of the fact that we sent comments to Professor Greve in August the report did not come out until May. That is not our fault. In the interim, we have taken continual action on the problem of London housing. The working party

was set up. Of course, it had to wait for the final version of Professor Greve's Report, because the figures were completely different. No one had any idea whether Profesor Greve would change his mind about any of the points. He was sent 12 pages of closely-argued evidence which he presumably thought was important, for it took him five months to reply. Therefore, we cannot be criticised for waiting a further few weeks before the working party was set up.

Mr. Freeson: Is it not a fact that the main part of that so-called evidence was a presentation of the statistical information based on the Standing Working Party's report, and that no changes were made in the recommendations arising from the original report presented last June.

Mr. Channon: That may well be so, but, then, it is astonishing that he took five months to answer.
The first report from the working party set up by my right hon. Friend dealt with the nature and prevention of homeless-ness. It made changes in the definition of homelesssness, and it dealt with homeless families with children as the first priority. However, single people are extremely important, too, and they will be considered in the next report, which I hope will be soon.
The report states that an over-riding housing obligation is for local authorities to accommodate as a priority those families who seem certain to lose their home and those where there is serious risk of imminent family break-down as a result of housing need and social stress. That follows closely the recommendations of the Council for Social Services, which can be found in Professor Greve's Report as well.
There was no coherent definition of homelessness before. The definition given is one that I hope the London boroughs will accept. I also hope that they will soon reply to the suggestions made in the working party's report. I think that they are sensible suggestions. I hope and believe that the boroughs will think so too, and that we shall have a chance to discuss them with the boroughs.
The solution to the problem lies in dealing with the London housing problem itself. Housing starts in London for the first five months of this year rose from under 12,000 to nearly 16,000. The number of completions so far this year also shows a small increase on the corresponding figures for last year. The number of local authority tender approvals last year was under 20,000, and I am glad to say that there seems a good chance that this will increase this year as well. In 1970 the total rate of slum clearance was 5,500. In the last quarter of 1970 it was 1,445 compared with the figure of 1,200 for the comparable quarter of 1969. In the first quarter of this year that figure rose to 2,288.
The House will have the opportunity to debate in greater detail on Monday the reform of housing finance.
The problems of slum clearance are crucial in London, but the real problems are obsolescence, sub-standard houses and the sheer lack of houses. For sub-standard houses in 1968 the improvement figures were 9,000. They rose to 17,000 in 1970. We intend shortly to mount the largest improvement campaign in the world in London. I hope that everyone concerned will join in making it an outstanding success.
The Government's proposals for the reform of housing finance provide for a rising costs subsidy which will meet about 75 per cent. of the costs to local authorities incurred when their housing costs rise faster than their rent income. In addition—and this will be of particular value to London—the provisions provide for an operational deficit subsidy which, broadly speaking, will relieve local authorities of half their rate-borne deficit now arising on their housing revenue account. A borough obliged to make a rate fund contribution of 20p in the pound in 1971–72 might well be able to reduce that contribution to a little more than 10p in the pound for 1972–73, while continuing to go full speed ahead in its building programme. Such a reduction might relieve the burden on the ratepayers of such a borough by £1 million or more. That is the proof of what we have always said, that we intend to help the areas and people in greatest need.
For the first time there are 750,000 people in London living in private unfurnished accommodation who, because of our rent allowance scheme, will have no need to fear eviction if they cannot afford the rents.
The working party made recommendations for improving the early warning scheme for local authorities to learn when people are in danger of eviction.
All these are constructive steps that the Government have taken in the comparatively short time we have been in office.
We are debating a tragic problem. The Opposition have approached it in an unconstructive way with their Motion. From the way they talked, one might imagine that the Greve Report deal with conditions while we were in power. It deals with conditions when the Labour Party was in power throughout London. It is an indictment of the policies of six years of Labour rule in London. Labour hon. Members should be hanging their heads in shame. The London Labour Party controlled London for 30 years, and the citizens of London should regret it. We have shown that we will tackle the problem energetically. [Laughter.] Laugh this off—the starts in London are up, completions are up, slum clearance is up, improvement grants are up and tender approvals are up, and the housing finance reform relieves the burdens on the needy.

The Motion reveals cynical political opportunism, preying on the misfortunes of a minority of people in London. The Labour Party had no real concern for them when they were in power. The hon. Member for Willesden, East was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman personally had concern. I withdraw that allegation from him at once. But he had his opportunity when in power to put forward the ideas he put forward so glibly this afternoon. The Opposition did not act when they were in power, and now they are resorting to carping criticism of a Government determined to act and help solve the problem.

I ask my hon. Friends to reject with contumely and contempt the Motion put forward with such cynicism by the Opposition.

Question put, That the Amendment be made :—

The House divided : Ayes 301, Noes 267.

Division No. 431.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Emery, Peter
Kinsey, J. R.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Farr, John
Kirk, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fell, Anthony
Knox, David


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lambton, Antony


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fidler, Michael
Lane, David


Astor, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Atkins, Humphrey
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Awdry, Daniel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fowler, Norman
Longden, Gilbert


Batsford, Brian
Fox, Marcus
Loveridge, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Luce, R. N.


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
MacArthur, Ian


Benyon, W.
Gardner, Edward
McCrindle, R. A.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley


Blaker, Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Boscawen, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gorst, John
Madel, David


Bowden, Andrew
Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marten, Neil


Braine, Bernard
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Bray, Ronald
Green, Alan
Maude, Angus


Brewis, John
Grieve, Percy
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gummer, Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bryan, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.( Aberdeenshire, W)


Buck, Antony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bullus Sir Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Burden F. A.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Molyneaux, James


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Money, Ernle


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Carlisle, Mark
Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon, Paul
Havers, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hay, John
Mudd, David


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Clegg, Walter
Hlggins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Normanton, Tom


Cooke, Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, s )
Nott, John


Coombs, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Onslow, Cranley


Cooper, A. E.
Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cordle, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Osborn, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hordern, Peter
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cormack, Patrick
Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Costain, A. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Critchley, Julian
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peel, John


Crouch, David
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Curran, Charles
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


d'Avigdor-Gotdsmid, Sir Henry
Iremnonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dean, Paul
James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dixon, Piers
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jones, Arthur (Northants S.)
Raison, Timothy



Jopling, Michael
Rawilinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Eden, Sir John
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, w. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon




Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stokes, John
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walters, Dennis


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Sutcliffe, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wealtherill, Bernard


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow, Cathcart)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Sharples, Richard
Temple, John M.
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Simeons, Charles
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sinclair, Sir George
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Soref, Harold
Trew, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Speed, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher



Spence, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin



Sproat, lain
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Stainton, Keith
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hilton, W. S.


Albu, Austen
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Horam, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Deakins, Eric
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Allen, Scholefield
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Delargy, H. J.
Huckfield, Leslie


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Ashley, Jack
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Ashton, Joe
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Hunter, Adam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Barnes, Michael
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Janner, Greville


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Barnett, Joel
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgton)
Dunnett, Jack
John, Brynmor


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alex
Johnson Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones Barry (Flint, E)


Booth, Albert
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
English, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Evans, Fred
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Bradley, Tom
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Judd, Frank


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Russell




Kinnock Neil


Buchan, Norman
Foley, Maurice
Lambie, David


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Foot, Michael
Lamond, James


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ford, Ben
Latham, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Forrester, John
Lawson, George


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cant, R. B.
Freeson, Reginald
Leonard, Dick


Carmichael, Neil
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lestor, Miss Joan


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Garrett, W. E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Golding, John
Lipton, Marcus


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lomas, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Gourlay, Harry
Loughlin, Charles


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McBride, Neil


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McCann, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McCartney, Hugh


Cronin, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McElhone, Frank


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McGuire, Michael


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Hardy, Peter
Mackie, John


Dalyell, Tam
Harper, Joseph
Mackintosh, John P.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)







Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Marks, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G.
Strang, Gavin


Marquand, David
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Marsden, F.
Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Taverne, Dick


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Probert, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Rankin, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Meacher, Michael
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds S.)
Tinn, James


Mendelson, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tomney, Frank


Mikardo, Ian
Richard, Ivor
Torney, Tom


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tuck, Raphael


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Varley, Eric G.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wainwright, Edwin


Molloy, William
Roper, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, David


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sandelson, Neville
Weitzman, David


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Moyle, Roland
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)


Murray, Ronald King
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Whitehead, Philip


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


O'Malley, Brian
Sillars, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Oram, Bert
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Oswald, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Small, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Padley, Walter
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stallard, A. W,



Parker, John (Dagenham)
Steel, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. William Hamling.


Pendry, Tom

Main Question, as amended, put :—

The House divided : Ayes 302, Noes 268.

Division No. 432.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carlisle, Mark
Fidler, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Channon, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chapman, Sydney
Fookes, Miss Janet


Astor, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fortescue, Tim


Atkins, Humphrey
Churchill, W. S.
Foster, Sir John


Awdry, Daniel
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fowler, Norman


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fox, Marcus


Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)
Clegg, Walter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Balniel, Lord
Cockeram, Eric
Fry, Peter


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cooke, Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Batsford, Brian
Coombs, Derek
Gardner, Edward


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper, A. E.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bell, Ronald
Cordle, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Biffen, John
Critchley, Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Blaker, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Raymond


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Curran, Charles
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Body, Richard
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gray, Hamish


Boscawen, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Green, Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Grieve, Percy


Bowden, Andrew
Dean, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Bernard
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gummer, Selwyn


Bray, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Gurden, Harold


Brewis, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bryan, Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Buck, Antony
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bullus, Sir Eric
Emery, Peter
Hastings, Stephen


Burden, F. A.
Farr, John
Havers, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fell, Anthony
Hawkins, Paul




Hay, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Heseltine, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Simeons, Charles


Hicks, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hiley, Joseph
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Soref, Harold


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Holland, Philip
Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Holt, Miss Mary
Molyneaux, James
Sproat, lain


Hordern, Peter
Money, Ernle
Stainton, Keith


Hornby, Richard
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Monro, Hector
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Hunt, John
Mudd, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murton, Oscar
Sutcliffe, John


Iremonger, T. L.
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


James, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nott, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Temple, John M.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Osborn, John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Jopling Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kilfedder, James
Peel, John
Tilney, John


Kimball, James
Percival, Ian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Trew, Peter


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kinsey, J. R.
Pink, R. Bonner



Kirk, Peter
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robert


Knox, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lambton, Antony
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Lane, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Raison, Timothy
Wall, Patrick


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walters, Dennis


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Redmond, Robert
Ward, Dame Irene


Longden, Gilbert
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Warren, Kenneth


Loveridge, John
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Weatherill, Bernard


Luce, R. N,
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
White, Roger (Gravesend)


MacArthur, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McCrindle, R. A,
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


McLaren, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilkinson, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


Maddan, Martin
Rost, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Madel, David
Russell, Sir Ronald
Younger, Hn. George


Marples, Rt. Hn, Ernest
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Marten, Neil
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Mather, Carol
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Maude, Angus
Sharples, Richard
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Booth, Albert
Cooks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Albu, Austen
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cohen, Stanley


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Concannon, J. D.


Allen, Scholefield
Bradley, Tom
Conlan, Bernard


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crawshaw, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cronin, John


Atkinson, Norman
Buchan, Norman
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Barnes, Michael
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dalyell, Tam


Barnett, Joel
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Davidson, Arthur


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)







Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Perry, Ernest G.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Prescott, John


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dormand, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kerr, Russell
Rankin, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Driberg, Tom
Lambie, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunn, James A.
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edelman, Maurice
Leonard, Dick
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred
Lipton, Marcus
Sandelson, Neville


Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foley, Maurice
McCann, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor



Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stallard, A. W.


Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steel, David


Golding, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Micheal (Fulham)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John



Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marsden, F.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Taverne, Dick


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John
Tomney, Frank


Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Urwin, T. W.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Varley, Eric G.


Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wainwright, Edwin


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David


Horam, John
Morris, Chartes R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
whitlock, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oram, Bert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Janner, Creville
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


John, Brynmor
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles



Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. William Hamling.


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Resolved,
That this House deplores the legacy of homelessness and housing shortage in London inherited from the last administration ; welcomes the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government,

together with the London authorities, to secure better provision for homeless people in London ; and expresses confidence in the determination of Her Majesty's Government to solve these problems as quickly as possible.

SPORT AND YOUTH SERVICES

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the cancellation of local sports club grants and the reduction of grants to British international sports teams ; it further condemns the present suspension of the scheme for grant aiding local youth club capital projects and the rejection by Her Majesty's Government of the report. Youth and Community Work in the 70's, and believes that these decisions will undermine the provision of local community services for which there is an increasing need.
Casting one's mind back to the early days of the Labour Government in 1964 one often thinks how much it was to the credit of my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister that in the middle of the difficult economic situation that he inherited he decided that that was the moment when the quality of life and the provision of good leisure facilities for our people should find expression in the Ministerial appointments that he made. As the House will recall, he appointed, for the first time, two Ministers—my colleague, the then Jennie Lee, in charge of the arts, and myself, in charge of sport.
He felt that it was right for me to start my operations in the Department of Education, where there could be a link-up between the provision of sports services and youth services. In other words, this was the start of a conscious movement towards the provision of a leisure service.
This question of philosophy is of extreme importance. During the debate I shall no doubt take issue with hon. Members opposite, but I like to think that what we started in our six years has been progressively accepted by them. It has certainly been accepted throughout the country. In those early days some people had doubts about the advent of a Minister for Sports or a Minister for the Arts, but they rapidly saw the advantages—at any rate, in sport.
The one claim that I make for my six years' stewardship as Minister of Sport is that the various schemes that we announced during the course of the Labour Government were based on consultations within sport, and the advice of the Sports Council, and came overwhelmingly to be accepted by those in sport as being in the interests of its de-

velopment Now, one year after the advent of the present Government, we are discussing changes to be made in sport and in the youth service—changes which seem to us to be extremely serious, and to depart from the general philosophy that has been built up and become accepted during the last six years. In both sport and the youth service the basis on which we were operating was the development of the voluntary clubs. We felt that there was a need to improve the base of the pyramid—a need for a first-class foundation upon which the whole service could be built up.
I want to deal with sport first. Grants to voluntary sports clubs were a cornerstone of our policy. The Government, regrettably, have now announced the ending of those grants. I remind the House that they went up to a maximum of £10,000 in respect of any one club, not for replacing existing facilities but for new or additional facilties. The grants were made for buying a new sports ground, which otherwise would not have been possible, or for developing a sports ground by adding to its facilities—putting in floodlights, and so on.
Having read all that the party opposite has said through the years—and especially during the last General Election campaign—about the need to encourage voluntary endeavour, it is amazing to realise that when they make their first major inroad into schemes for sport they do so by chopping back on voluntary endeavour. I am not surprised that nobody in the world of sport understands it.
I am glad that in my six years—and I am sure that my successor follows the same practice—we did not have party political discussions in sport ; people were interested in getting on with the job. Nevertheless, there are more supporters of the party opposite than of mine in governing bodies in sport, and they are amazed that the first major change in the sports programme should be made at the expense of voluntary endeavour. It is a ludicrous situation. We were getting good value for money. If we can encourage a body of citizens to do a job for themselves we are much more likely to get value for money and a good return than we are if the State or local authorities are doing the job. That makes all the more incredible the Government's decision.
There is one thing that I am not clear about, and I hope that the Scottish Under-Secretary will be able to clear it up by a nod of the head, or will be able to tell me later. We are not certain whether the ending of grants for these voluntary sports clubs applies to Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor) indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: The Under-Secretary shakes his head. It does not apply to Scotland. I am delighted to know that, because it leads me to my first question. How on earth can we justify the ending of this aid to governing bodies in voluntary sports in England and Wales but not in Scotland? It is a most astounding proposition that sports clubs in Scotland may receive a 50 per cent. grant whereas similar clubs in England and Wales receive no grant towards the build-up of facilities. I shall be happy to hear the Government's justification for that seemingly absurd situation.

Mr. James Dempsey: Can my hon. Friend explain whether the 50 per cent. applies to equipment or to buildings—or to both?

Mr. Howell: It applies to both. It used to, at any rate. It applied to capital equipment, buildings and land for additional sports facilities.
This scheme has been a tremendous success. I shall not go through all the sports, but they have had substantial help. But the sports of rugby, soccer, tennis and cricket all testify to the great help that this has been in getting their sport on a proper foundation. In 1968–69, over £1,400,000 was spent under this scheme in the three countries.
There are two very good reasons for supporting this scheme. One concerns the effect in the local community. The House cannot do better than to encourage a group of sportsmen to build facilities, to treasure them and to provide wonderful sporting opportunities for the youth of the area. That is first class. The other day I listened to the Minister in a broadcast with the new chairman of the Sports Council and one of the subjects discussed was the promotion of excellence in sport, about which I agree. But it is not possible to have champions at the top

unless there is a healthy grass roots activity in sport. For every champion there must be 2,000 or 3,000 people operating at local level. The healthier the local sporting facilities, the more champions we shall have at the top. It must follow that the more harm we do to good club facilities, the more difficult we make the task of making champions at the top.
The ending of the grants was done without any consultation with anybody, which caused me to explode the other day and to describe the Minister's attitude as arrogant.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): It was very unkind.

Mr. Howell: It may have been very unkind. The question is whether it was accurate. I do not know what other description the hon. Gentleman would wish me to use. Here is the cornerstone of British sports policy and he decides to end it at a stroke—one respect in instant action can apparently be taken—with no consultation with any of the bodies whose purpose is to advise him. When asked for the reason, he said :
I had all the necessary consultations with the Sports Council on matters on which it could properly advise me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1971 ; Vol. 820, c. 1328.]
In other words, the expenditure of 50 per cent. of its budget—[Interruption.] The sum of £1½ million must be about 50 per cent. because, according to the reply, the whole Budget is only £2·68 million this year, to which we must add the figure for Scotland. If it is not about 50 per cent. of its budget, it is at any rate a substantial part of it. The Minister decided that he could not learn anything from the Sports Council and did not need to consult it on the ending of a substantial part of the budget.
The Minister has decided to appoint a new independent Sports Council with Dr. Roger Bannister as its chairman. It is to start work in the autumn. So the Minister ended this scheme with no consultation with the present Sports Council and before the creation of the new independent Sports Council, which leads at once to the suspicion that this is nothing more or less than a Treasury exercise and that the hon. Gentleman has sold out to the Treasury.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I am an old fox in these matters. I know the pressure which was put on me by the Treasury for six years to end this scheme and the youth scheme. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has succumbed to the pressure of the Treasury.
Not only did the Under-Secretary of State not consult the Sports Council ; he did not consult any of the regional sports councils. The West Midlands Sports Council was in session in Birmingham deciding the priorities for next year when it was rung up by someone from Whitehall who said, "All schemes are ended. Please do not submit any more recommendations".
The position concerning the local authorities is even more remarkable. The Under-Secretary of State and his friends, who have lectured us on the subject of consultation with local authorities and allowing the authorities to have their say, did not have one word of consultation with them. In his statement about ending the grant, the hon. Gentleman said, "Because I believe that local provision is right, I expect the local authorities to take over responsibility for it". Yet he had no word of consultation with them and no guarantees from them that they would take over responsibility for it. No addition was proposed to the general rate grant, which is the Government's contribution to local government, to meet the new obligations which the hon. Gentleman expected them to meet.
This is an absolutely incomprehensible situation. The worst local authorities, the most reactionary of them—unfortunately, there are many of them, although I am prepared to concede that they are not all of one political colour—

Mr. Joseph Ashton: There are fewer of them now than there were.

Mr. Howell: Yes.
The sports clubs are subject to the whim of the local authorities. They have no incentive. Think of the plight of all the sports clubs which have spent a long time in raising thousands of £s to meet their share of the expense in the expectation that they would get Government help for their schemes only to have them

stopped without a moment's notice. It is a very difficult job raising a few thousand £s these days. All these voluntary people who were ready to apply to the Government for a grant have been insulted.
The Minister says, very properly, that he is glad that he has more money for his new independent Sports Council. We welcome that. I am delighted about it, although I am not so delighted about the source from which the money came. The Under-Secretary of State is part of a very big Ministry and therefore this money has come from another sector of it. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he has obtained money for sport from housing. [HON. MEMBERS : "No."] Where has it come from? It must have come from housing, local government or roads. It has been made available because the Government cannot build houses in the local authority sector. Therefore, there was a bit spare on the account and they have said, "We will let you have another £1 million". I have done that myself, and I do not complain about it, but I did not get the money from housing. We welcome the additional money being given to sport, but it is regrettable that it has not been added to the Ministry's overall budget.
This is an incredible situation and it strikes at the community provision of good sports facilities. Another example is the way in which the Government have acted in the remarkable interchange going on in the Daily Express between the Minister and Mr. Desmond Hackett, an old friend of mine. It concerns the sort of thing which the Minister and I would wish to encourage. A territorial drill hall has been made available to over 63 clubs which have been started in two years. I mention that figure because it shows the need for local community facilities in Tottenham where there is not a blade of grass on which to kick a ball. In Tottenham and Islington the only two spaces on which people can kick a ball are the Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal football grounds.
I am not surprised to find that this drill hall has been an outstanding success, but because of the needs of other Ministries and Departments it is threatened with closure. Hon. Members went to see the Minister about it. He said that he would do what he could, but he could not hold


out any hope. They did not get very far. There has been more activity as a result of the actions of the Daily Express and Mr. Desmond Hackett in the last 48 hours than there had been in the previous three months, because 48 hours ago Mr. Desmond Hackett announced that there would be a great march on No. 10 Downing Street on Sunday. They have already had one march which was two miles long.
Mr. Jack Wilson, who made the announcement, was promptly rung up by an official of the Central Council for Physical Recreation and was asked to call off the march. It is grossly improper for the Government to use a voluntary body to try to call off a political protest. I do not think the Minister and his colleagues should have done it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that if the hon. Gentleman turns to his colleagues on his own benches he will find that they will tell him that the matter about which Mr. Hackett was writing is under discussion by myself and two of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and one of my own, and the action which is being taken on this matter has been in train for some time. We are not responding to the Daily Express.

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman is not responding to the Daily Express he has a very odd way of expressing his non-response. I will tell the House what happened. Two or three weeks ago he certainly agreed to look into it, but nothing much happened, and Mr. Jack Wilson and his colleagues told Mr. Desmond Hackett, who made the disclosures yesterday. All hell was let loose. Never has there been such activity in the Department of the Environment. First, it got them to stop the march and then Mr. Jack Wilson had talks yesterday and today we have a handsome picture of the Minister on the back page of the Daily Express and I want to quote one sentence from the newspaper. It is a gem which I cannot spare the House. The Minister said, in reply to the charge that he did not go down to look at the sports club himself, gave as his reason—and it is magnificent—
I was not prepared to go down to make a headline or improve a public image.
Those who have followed the great career of the Minister over the years can afford

to treat that phrase with a healthy degree of scepticism.
I move on to the question of international grants, which is another matter which falls within our Motion, and about which the whole sports world feels very strongly. This is pre-Olympics year ; near year we have the Olympics. When I came back from the Olympics in Mexico in 1968 I tried to evaluate our success, and one thing which was crystal clear to me, and later to the Sports Council, was that we could only do well in top class sport if we competed year in, year out, against other nations better than ourselves. For example, we did badly in swimming. Swimmers are found in Australia and California and it is no good swimming against Belgium and Holland ; that will not raise our standards sufficiently. I asked the sports bodies to come and see me, and the Sports Council asked them to prepare four-year development programmes which would lead to fruition in Olympics year. They responded to that invitation and they have done that. The Sports Council asked them on my behalf, "What can we do most to help you over a four-year programme reaching culmination in Olympics year?" This is pre-Olympics year, which is most important. They said, "Please give us more help in sending our British sports teams abroad". The reason is that many of the Olympic sports are not sports which attract tremendous popular spectator support ; they are not as popular as soccer, and have not the resources which can be supplied by vast armies of spectators. They responded to my invitation and prepared a programme based on the fact that I was going to give them more help to send British teams abroad. I am happy to say that in the last year in which I was responsible we were able to increase the amount of aid from 50 per cent. to two-thirds.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Just before the election.

Mr. Howell: It was not just before the election. The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. It was in response to a request. Whether it was before the election or not does not matter, does it? The important thing is, ought we to be doing it? They having been asked to do that and to support a programme on the basis of a two-thirds


grant, it is an absolute breach of faith on the part of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues now to drop the grant from two-thirds to 50 per cent. It is an utter breach of faith. Why have they to do it? If the hon. Gentleman comes to the House and boasts of £1 million more for sport, why on earth is he dropping this grant, and in the year before the Olympics, when there is nothing more important than to get teams abroad to practise them in international competition?
If we want to see the effects of first-class competition we have one in Ray Terrell. I was recently in America looking at Ray Terrell, who was sent with private support to California to train against the best swimmers in the world. In a month or two this country has the benefit, when he has broken many records. He deserves our great congratulations. All that shows how important it is to compete against the world's best.
Why then has the Minister dropped the grant at a time when the Minister boasts he has an extra £1 million for sport? The sports bodies are now in a difficult position, having built up an extended programme. Not just before the General Election, for it takes months to arrange these things. There have to be international conferences, there have to be negotiations on programmes with the international governing bodies for sport. Now the whole thing has been chopped down by the Minister.
I turn to the new independent sports council. This is a cornerstone of the Amendment which the Government will doubtless be moving soon to the Motion I am moving. So I shall have to talk about it for a short time. That is a policy which has been rejected by almost everybody who has been consulted about it. I know that the Minister now says the local authorities welcome it. They and the sports bodies, having been faced with a fait accompli are, I have no doubt, prepared to make the best they can of it, and to do the best they can, and I am sure they will co-operate with the Minister to the best of their ability. When I consulted the sports bodies, the regional bodies, and the National Sports Council, they, and the Lilleshall conference, almost overwhelmingly rejected it as an

alternative to the present system. It was in the Conservative programme.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The public supported it.

Mr. Howell: The public did not support it. If the public did support it, it was because they did not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by this exercise, and it is for him to explain to the House why he put it up.
The sports bodies are there to advise the Minister and they certainly turned it down. Their attitude can be summed up simply : "The present system, which the Labour Government created, works very well. What on earth do we want to interfere with it for?"
It is ironical that at the moment when almost every Government in the world, including the American Government, are having sports councils associated officially with the governmental machines, this Government are putting our council outside the machine. The Central Council for Physical Recreation consists of experts. It rejected this proposal. The governing bodies of sport have rejected it. The Minister did his best, but everybody consulted has rejected this policy.
If we want to know why he went on with the policy in the face of the very considerable rejection of it, the Amendment which is to be proposed gives the game away. It tells us perfectly clearly that the decision to have an independent sports council was taken in furtherance of the Government's election promises.

An Hon. Member: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Howell: I will say what is wrong with it. When the Minister consulted the sports bodies and the C.C.P.R. and the Sports Council he had already taken the decision and he was not going to take any notice of what they might think of it, or what they might tell him. Whatever views they might put, the election programme of the Government preempted everything. Some of us might wish that the Government's election policy were carried out in other fields of activity, but I should be out of order if I went into that.
We wish the new Sports Council well and we hope that it prospers, although we have grave doubts about it. What does


the Minister of Sport do if he is not the Minister of Sport? We should like to know the answer to that interesting conundrum. He will not be chairing the Sports Council. We shall not be able to put down Questions in the House, because he will say it is not his business but the business of the Sports Council. There will not be the public cross-examination which there has been for six years—

Mr. Ray Carter: As there was on South Africa.

Mr. Howell: I will not get sidetracked onto South Africa. That is a subject that will be with us for some time. I want to concentrate upon the Minister. What appeal will there be from the decisions of the non-elected Sports Council?
I have seen copies of the consultation correspondence with some local authorities. There will be a Sports Council consisting of 20 people, some representing England and Wales, two representing the whole of local government, and some representing sport. It will be a grotesquely unbalanced Sports Council. If this body of non-elected people takes a decision how can it be challenged? For the last six years any decision which I took could be challenged by any one of 600 Members of Parliament. That sanction has now been withdrawn.

Mr Eldon Griffiths: Mr Eldon Griffiths indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman must not shake his head ; he knows it has been removed. The Table Office will not accept Questions about the decisions of an independent council when it is set up. It is almost inconceivable that an independent Sports Council should take decisions which should be the responsibility of the Minister about local authority capital expenditure. It must be explained to us where local authorities can go when they wish to get loan sanction for their schemes or to talk about the global aspect of capital grants.
The independent chairman of the Sports Council is to be Dr. Roger Bannister, and I wish him well in his task. There are two aspects of this which cause me concern. First, the one argument in favour of an independent Sports Council used to be that it was independent and could criticise the Government. Those who advanced that argument to me, including the Conservative Party, said that

my Sports Council, because I was the Chairman, could not criticise the Government. I understand that Dr. Bannister is now to be regarded as the Government's principal adviser on sport. If the chairman of the Sports Council is the Government's principal adviser, gone at one stroke is the council's critical function. How can the chairman of an independent Sports Council and the Government's principal adviser on sport criticise the Government he is advising? This is ludicrous.

Mr. Brian Harrison: Is not it part of the rôle of an adviser to criticise?

Mr. Howell: It would certainly detract at least 50 per cent. from any reasonable notion of independence if the man who is advising the Government is expected to criticise the Government. We should have to know on every issue—and I do not think the Government would find this acceptable—what was the advice. We should want to know why he had not criticised the Government. It may be that the Government were accepting his advice. This is putting Dr. Bannister in an untenable position.
Secondly, it is generally thought that Dr. Bannister will give two days a week to this job as part-time chairman. I spent two days a week in my Ministerial function and chairing the Sports Council plus two days at the weekend going round the country. It is no good having a chairman of the Sports Council who is not going around the country when sport is being player, which is mostly on Saturdays and Sundays. But Dr. Bannister is not only assuming the Minister's rôle and being chairman of the Sports council, he is also taking over the rôle of Sir Stanley Rous on the Central Council for Physical Education. Dr. Bannister will now run the national recreation centres, of which there are several, he will run all the coaching which the C.C.P.E. does and he will run the games and sports committee and the whole council of sport. He is taking all that under his wing in addition to what I was doing as Minister, and in addition to being chairman of the Sports Council. Those functions, which are extremely important, require the services of a full-time chairman and cannot be done on the basis of a commitment to two days a week.
I move on to the youth service. Here again we censure the Government because of the fundamental indifference of their attitude. The report "Youth and Community Work in the 70s" represented two years' work. I will try briefly to tell the House the opinion of the youth service Development Committee—of which, as Under-Secretary of State for Education, I was privileged to be Chairman—which undertook this task.
There had been a catastrophic fall in the number of people going into the youth service. This was when the school leaving age was to be raised from 15 to 16 and when Parliament had decided that young people became adults at 18. This was the challenging situation which the Committee reviewed. The Committee said that there had to be two levels of youth service, one for people in the school system of 16, 17 and 18 and one for young adults at 18. Young people of 16, 17 and 18 regard themselves as adults and that is why they do not go into youth clubs. The Committee said that the real work is where young people are to be found. If young people are to be found in cafés, discotheques, clubs and street corners, that is where the youth work must be undertaken.
The report received a great welcome throughout the youth service. Every training college of youth leaders re-jigged its whole policy on the basis of the recommendations of the report, and every youth leader was being trained for youth work in the community as a whole. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has completely rejected the whole report, and this has caused a tremendous lowering of morale throughout the youth service. People do not know what sort of decisions to make. Youth colleges and local authority youth organisations are based on what was said in the report, but the Government have rejected it and put nothing in its place.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary in the last year have not produced one idea of their own to take the place of the philosophy of the report which they have rejected. This is a matter of extreme regret. I do not believe that the critics of the report understand the problems in our cities. They do not appreciate the problems which

face a youngster who comes from an indifferent home with overcrowded conditions and who works, day in and day out, in a factory on the same job. He comes home to enjoy his leisure, and has only the street corner, because there are no adequate leisure facilities in the town. That is the prospect facing millions of young people.
It is incredible that at the same time as the Government have cut back schemes for grant-aided youth work, the people in our society with the best brains—the students in their student unions—have had more money spent on their leisure activities. Those students, who are quite able to look after themselves, have the best facilities for sports activities and the best opportunity for their leisure hours. It is the down-town youngster, who leaves school at the age of 15, who will feel the brunt of the economy cuts of this Government. This is what will flow from the rejection of this report and the ending of grants to youth clubs.
It is interesting to note that the Government are now proposing a new system involving a third contribution from Government, a third from local authorities and a third from voluntary bodies. This means that the voluntary bodies are being further imposed upon by the Conservative Party since they have now to raise, not one-quarter, but one-third of the amount. If it is thought fit to give a one-third grant to youth clubs, why is nothing being given to sports clubs? The two things are synonymous since they are doing the same sort of basic job in our society.
Another aspect of this matter was brought to my attention at Birmingham at the weekend. There is a new comprehensive school at Perry Barr costing several hundred thousand pounds, but although the area also needs a youth centre the education authority could not get from the Government a decision on the provision of capital expenditure on that project at the same time as they got a decision on the allocation of capital funds for the school. This is typical of the difficulties which have been created.
I apologise for taking more time than I intended—[HON. MEMBERS : "ear, hear."] The changes in Government policy need to be explored. Those of us who know the large cities are aware of the sort of problems to be found in


them. We know all about the misuse of leisure in our society and the lack of facilities for a good leisure service. This is the root cause of much of the difficulty in our urban communities ; this is the most pressing of all the needs. The provision of a sports service in the local community, the provision of youth services and the availability of skilled youth leadership, which is one of the most difficult jobs in our society, have been undermined by Government decisions over the last year. We shall register our protest in the Division Lobby.

8.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :
'welcomes Her Majesty's Government's decision to fulfil its election promises by establishing an independent sports council with enhanced status, wider powers and larger funds at their disposal ; believes the sports council should have wide discretion in the allocation of those funds for local and regional purposes ; and notes with approval the intention to continue support for the Youth Service and to ensure that it is used effectively'.
In my speech I shall be dealing with that part of the Amendment which refers to sport. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) will recall only too well that until October 1969 the Minister responsible for sport also had responsibility for the youth services, but the Labour Administration saw an advantage in separating these two functions. Therefore, it is the hon. Gentleman's bad luck that he must now accept the disadvantage of waiting for a separate reply on the youth service from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I shall deal with sport.
I begin by paying tribute to the work of the Sports Council over the past six years, to all those who have served it so well, and indeed to the hon. Gentleman for the leadership he gave to it. He was successful in creating a climate of enthusiasm for sport, and I readily pay him that tribute.
The new Sports Council, which the Government are setting up in pursuance of their election manifesto—I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should regard it as a bad thing that we should keep our promises—differs from the

present one in several important respects. It is right that I should explain them to the House.
First, its status will be considerably enhanced. It will have a royal charter, and its individual members will bring in quite a number of substantial and important bodies. On the new Sports Council, there will be direct membership of the local authorities and of the Armed Services. I am sure that this is right since the Armed Services have a great number of sports facilities. It will also have at the membership level very much closer links with such other bodies as the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy and the Forestry Commission.
I hope that the Council will operate as a board of directors making broad and strategic policy decisions about sport and investment in sport rather than as the old Council has operated working through all the minute details of many hundreds—and, indeed, thousands—of applications. Those details will be the responsibility of the new Sports Council's professional staff, who henceforth will not have to operate through the complex and often time-consuming processes of Whitehall. Incidentally, we expect to save over the next year 31 full-time civil servants. The new Council will have a higher status. I hope and expect that when the names of its members are announced shortly it will make a far greater impact on the ordinary people of the country.
The present Council has done excellent work but it has not been sufficiently well known to the man on the football terraces or to the average weekend sportsman. In particular, I have always thought it rather odd—I believe I shall carry the hon. Gentleman with me on this matter—that a national Sports Council should be expected to be credible to the ordinary man in the street when for all practical purposes it has had nothing to do with the country's premier game—namely, professional football. I hope to remedy this deficiency in the new Sports Council. Football is our greatest national game and is fully entitled to have a voice in the Sports Council, and the Government will see that it does have one.
The second change in the sports council is that it will be independent. The difference is substantially that the Minister


will no longer be in the chair. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is possible to have various views about this matter, but it is significant that the Wolfenden Committee, following whose advice the Sports Council was originally established, strongly advocated an executive council with an independent chairman. I am sure that this is right. A Minister inevitably shares responsibility with his other colleagues for all facets of Government policy. He cannot, therefore, become a lobbyist for funds for one particular kind of activity.
If the Sports Council wanted, as it often has during the hon. Gentleman's time as well as in mine, publicity to criticise or condemn the Government's attitude towards sport, the fact that a member of the Government and one who for all practical purposes has appointed himself and the members of the council was occupying the chair meant in practice that the council was virtually gagged from public debate.

Mr. Denis Howell: But it did it.

Mr. Griffiths: Ministers are in politics as well as in Government, and, though sport and politics can never be completely divorced, it is bad in principle that the voice of the Sports Council should be heard exclusively through the lips of a political Minister. As The Times newspaper said when I announced the changes, it is far better that the chairman of the council should be independent and be seen to be independent of the Government.
In Dr. Roger Bannister, I believe that the Government have found an excellent chairman. I assure the House and all sportsmen that his independence will be respected completely by the Government. For my part, I shall do all that I can to assist him in his endeavours.
The third difference between the old council and the new one is that the new one will have substantially greater powers. I cite only two examples. It will as an executive agency be able to set up new national sports centres ; for example, for Olympic sailing, perhaps for lawn tennis, or for anything else that it judges is needed. Through its regional sports councils, it will be able to act as a sort of marriage broker—in a way that an advisory body could not do—by bringing

together, where appropriate, statutory undertakers like the Countryside Commission, or the Forestry Commission, with the governing bodies of sport, with local authorities and, whenever possible or desirable, with private enterprise, so as to create new sporting centres all over the nation. For example, if a football stadium or cricket ground were under-used and in need of redevelopment—it might be Lords ; it might even be some London football club—there would be nothing to prevent the new council from bringing in the local authority, the local education authority and other local sports clubs so as to plan a multi-purpose sports development for the benefit of the whole community.
At present, the council can do little more than urge such developments, for the council today has no money and no power. But the new council, at its discretion, will be able to use the funds at its disposal to prime the pumps of precisely these projects. That is a new power not possessed by the Sports Council hitherto.
Obviously, it is for the new council and its chairman to determine its priorities of policy and expenditure. But I have agreed with Dr. Bannister four main lines of policy that the new council will seek to pursue.
The first is that it will seek to get better use of our existing facilities. I am sure that I carry the House with me when I say that far too many schools and colleges have large areas of playing fields and gymnasia which to all intents and purposes go out of use at five in the afternoon, after Friday evenings and for three months during the summer. I very much hope—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What does the hon. Gentleman think has been happening?

Mr. Griffiths: Efforts have been made to cultivate dual use. There are about a hundred dual-use projects in the pipeline. The hon. Member for Small Heath pushed this idea as much as anyone. Dr. Bannister has agreed that one of the aims of the new council will be to get better use of our existing facilities. I am thinking not only of schools and colleges but of the sports facilities of our Armed Services, of the nationalised industries, of the Civil Service and of many private


firms whose sports grounds could be much better used for the community than they are at present.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman attempting to make his case by saying that it is necessary to set up a completely new council in order to do that which is being done already and was going on continuously under the previous Minister?

Mr. Griffiths: No. I am trying to help the House by setting up the terms of reference of the new council. It is right that the House should know them. The increased use of existing facilities is one of the main lines of policy that the new chairman of the council has agreed.
The second is to bring into use for sport and recreation much more of our natural resources. One has in mind the forests, the countryside, the lakes, and the rest.
The third main line of policy will be to apply the best of modern technology to the provision of sports facilities. I am glad to say that the Technical Unit for Sport, which I have been able to strengthen substantially, will be at the disposal of the new council. The type of help that it will be able to give is best illustrated by one example. One of the first requests that I made of the T.U.S. was that it should design a "best buy" standard swimming pool. My reason for doing so was that up and down the country there are pools which have cost various sums. In some cases it has cost £500,000 to put in a 25-metre pool. In others a similar pool has cost £250,000. Just as we have made a break-through in educational building with the standardised Terrapin classroom, I thought it should be possible to apply the same batch production to swimming pools and other sports facilities. The T.U.S. has designed the first "best buy" swimming pool. It is now being installed in conjunction with the Ashton-under-Lyne local authority. If it proves successful, I hope very much that we shall be able to move to large-scale production of these types of well-designed and economical pools for large numbers of people.

Mr. Skinner: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the old-established North-western Sports Council made any recommendation about the pool at Ashton-under-Lyne about which he has just been talking?

Mr. Griffiths: Like other councils, that body is very enthusiastic about this new development, which gives the promise of large numbers of pools being installed in local communities all over the country. If it is done with modular construction and the next project is for a "best buy" sports hall, and, after that, standardised squash courts, it will be possible to lock-on various other units so that eventually one builds a mini-sports centre using the best forms of modern technology. I am glad to say that the new chairman is willing to follow that line of policy.
The fourth is one about which I hope there will be no contention. It is that, where possible, the new council will seek to interest private enterprise in more sports bodies. One possibility is simple commercial investment for profit. I see nothing wrong in that. Another possibility is the bringing of private, especially industrial, sports grounds into wider use. I can see a rôle for sponsorship, though I accept that there must be certain limitations. I know that the new chairman is interested in the possibility of working out some code of sponsorship so that sporting bodies will have broad criteria on which to judge whether they should become associated with commercial firms.
All the points of policy that the new chairman has agreed arise essentially from the executive powers of the new council, especially from one power ; namely, that for the first time it will be possible for the new council directly to grant-aid local authority sports projects. That is of considerable importance.
The new council will have very much wider responsibilities than the old one. I have mentioned the need to bring into recreational use our country's natural environment—the forests, mountains, rivers and waterways and, where appropriate, the national parks. In the past the old Sports Council has done all that it could to keep in close contact with the statutory bodies responsible for these things. But henceforth the new council


will be able—indeed, I expect it—to do very much more in this direction. For example, I expect that at member level there will be a direct link with the Countryside Commission. The Chairman of the Forestry Commission, whom I saw the other day, has also undertaken to work closely with the national and regional sports councils so that more use can be made of our forested areas, and the privately-owned forestry organisations have gladly supported this approach.
It is the same with the rivers and lakes. Whatever form of reorganisation of the water industry my right hon. Friend may decide, I know that he has in mind to strengthen the duty to increase sports opportunities. Again, the new Sports Council will be able to help, not only with advice or technical suggestions, but, as it judges right, by the judicious use of its own funds.
Here perhaps I might say a word about reservoirs. Bearing in mind the enormous increase in demand for water recreation, I was surprised on taking office to find that of 500 reservoirs in England and Wales only 250 had arrangements for fishing, only 44 permitted sailing of any kind, and a mere half-dozen allowed canoeing. This is not good enough when on an average summer weekend there are nowadays more people involved with boats in one way or another than there are attending first-class professional football matches on an average winter weekend.
I therefore caused every statutory water authority in the country to be asked to review its practice of admitting or excluding sportsmen. I am pleased to tell the House that 34 separate water undertakers controlling tens of thousands of acres of water space have recently made, or plan soon to make, increased provision for recreational use of their reservoirs. I know that Dr. Bannister will enthusiastically follow up this initiative.
This widening of the horizons of the Sports Council to include the forests and the water has been widely welcomed by those who care most about recreation in its fullest sense. But to discharge its very much broader responsibilities the new Sports Council will need more cash. That is the final main difference between the old and the new Sports Council. The

old Sports Council had no money. Every penny was in the Minister's hands. The new Sports Council will have a good deal more money than the hon. Member for Small Heath was ever able to lay his hands on for help to sport.
I will come to the local capital grants in some detail later, but, first, I should, in fairness, state the record.
Expenditure on sport by both national Government and local authorities, the local authorities bearing the lion's share, has been as follows. In 1965, following the activities of the previous Conservative Government, the total expenditure central Government and local authority together, was £16·03 million. In 1966 the total was £6·9 million ; in 1967 £7·8 million ; in 1968 £8·9 million ; and in 1969–70 £9·4 million. The House will notice at once that in 1966 there was a drop of more than £9 million in expenditure on sport from a total budget of £16 million. This was almost entirely a drop on local authority account. The second result of the Labour Government was that local authority expenditure, which when we left office, had been £14 million, fell back in 1966 to £5·6 million.

Mr. Denis Howell: Mr. Denis Howell rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I want to go on, before the hon. Gentleman interrupts, to give credit where it is due.
Central Government help for sport rose from £750,000 in 1964 to £1¼ million in 1965 and by the efforts of the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to acknowledge, it has risen to over £2 million in 1969. For 1970—before an election—he got it up to £2·5 million. Yet—this is the point on which I think the House will latch—after six years of Labour rule the total expenditure on sport by central and local government combined was still less—significantly less—than in 1964, the last year of the previous Conservative Government.
I turn now to what we have done since taking office last June.

Mr. Howell: I do not complain about the figures which the hon. Gentleman has just given, except that he has not given the figure for 1970–71 for which we provided.

Mr. Griffiths: I think that I gave that figure.

Mr. Denis Howell: I think that the hon. Gentleman stopped at 1969–70. Perhaps he will give it to us on the capital side. The point is that the hon. Gentleman knows why there was this serious fall on local authority capital account. It was due entirely to the economic situation which led to devaluation. Whatever the hon. Gentleman said about it, the Conservative Party agreed with us at the time that, in the serious situation following devaluation, there should be no cuts in aid to housing, schools and hospitals, so the cuts had to be made elsewhere. However, six years of Labour Government enabled the Conservative Government to take over a far healthier balance of payments situation than we inherited from them.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is not helping his case. This is a debate about sport. The facts on sport are that when the previous Conservative Government left office in 1964 the total expenditure by local authorities and central Government was about £15 million to £16 million and when the Labour Government left office that total expenditure had dropped to less than £10 million. If the hon. Gentleman regards that as progress for sport, heaven help us.
I turn now to what we have done on this account since taking office last June. Before doing so, I should say that by 18th June last year, the day of the General Election, I found when I got into my particular chair that almost the whole of the total loan sanction then available for sports expenditure for this financial year had already been committed. It shows how confident the hon. Gentleman must have been about Labour winning the General Election that he blew the lot before the vote was taken, and when I took over the cupboard was bare.
I am glad to say that the present Government have replenished the cupboard. First, we increased the Exchequer's contribution to £2·7 million for 1971. On top of this we are proposing to seek the authority of the House to add a further £500,000—an increase of nearly one-fifth. All told, there is a new injection of fresh, additional expenditure of about £1·2 million ; that is 60 per cent., over and above the largest sum ever achieved by the previous Government in any full year for which they were wholly responsible.
I now turn to local capital grants, of which the hon. Gentleman sought to make such a meal. I first tell him flatly that it is untrue to say, as the Motion does, that local sports club grants have been cancelled or suspended. Not a penny of this money is being lost to sport. The whole sum, and more—because a great deal of administrative costs will be saved under the new arrangements—will be made over to the new Sports Council to use at its broad discretion.
The position on local clubs is simply this. The Government agree that the strength of the local club is the foundation of all that is best in British sport, and I am in no doubt whatsoever that under the new arrangements local clubs will continue to thrive. They will thrive because most of them depend not on hand-outs from the State but on their own voluntary efforts. They will thrive because the local authorities are by no means so unenlightened and so unconcerned for the needs of local sport as the hon. Gentleman seeks to think. The clubs will also be helped—and this is the important point—because, contrary to the mistaken impression conveyed in the Motion, the new Sports Council will have a wide discretion to take over from the Government by joining in with local authorities, or with the governing bodies of sport, to help these clubs as it sees fit.
As far as local authorities are concerned, there is one thing that I should say bluntly. They are less likely to help local sports clubs if the Government— meaning the taxpayers—for ever go on doing the job for them. For my part, I am by no means pessimistic about the willingness and ability of local authorities to respond to the needs of their local clubs. For one thing—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening—local authorities will take account of the new Sports Council's power —which the old one did not possess—to offer direct grant-aid to its own sports projects. It is for the Sports Council itself to decide how, when and where it will exercise this power, and I should be surprised—I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen carefully to these words—if any local authority which had totally ignored the needs of local clubs in its area found itself at the top of the regional sports


council's list of recommendations for assistance ; much less would it be the choice of the Sports Council when it came to allocating funds. Rather, I suspect that the new Sports Council, with its executive and grant-aiding powers, will exercise its discretion in the direction of making it worth while, in a local authority's own interests, to treat its clubs generously.
That is not simply an assertion of an expectation but rather the hard experience, and I come now to the hard experience on which my optimism is based. It is the experience of my Department's circular DOE 2/70—a document with which I am sure all hon. Members are familiar—which identifies certain types of local authority expenditure, including expenditure on sport, as "locally determined schemes". Within the allocation available for those schemes local authorities now have complete power to make their own decisions about how they spend that money without reference to my Department. The circular was as good a test as any of local authorities' willingness to respond to the needs of sport when given freedom to do so, and I think the House would like to have some measure of what has happened as the result of providing that discretion to local authorities.
I could take all the regions of the country, but I pick out just three, and the first is the North-West. In 1968 loan sanctions for sports projects for local authorities were running at the rate of £1·7 million. The figure was £1·3 million in 1969, and £1·7 million in 1970. By contrast, in 1971, the first year in which the effects of Circular 2/70 were felt—that is to say, the year in which local authorities were free to make their own decisions—investment has shot up rapidly. It has gone well over the £2 million mark, and there is more still coming in for this year.
In Wales the comparable figures, during the period when there was no discretion, are £250,000 for 1968, £400,000 for 1969 and £900,000 for 1970. That was a good rising trend ; but look at what has happened since Welsh local authorities have been free to make their own decisions. Their sports investment, freed of Government control, has shot up to an all-time record of just over the £2 million mark, with more to come.
I am glad to say that the pattern is the same all over the country. The Greater London and South-East Sports Council reports a marked increase. So, far from our new policy of trusting the local authorities leading to a reduction in sports expenditure, on the facts there has been almost everywhere a substantial and encouraging increase.
I must therefore reject the suggestion that in placing more responsibility on local authorities to assist purely local clubs we are somehow consigning those clubs to outer darkness. The evidence is to the contrary. Every penny that local authorities may henceforth appropriate to help their local clubs is new money for sport. The whole of the Government's present allocation is being turned over in full to the new Sports Council to dispense at its broad discretion.
I turn now to international grants. The Motion speaks of a reduction in grant to British international sports teams. My answer to the charge is simply that it is not true. On the contrary, in 1971–72 substantially more money is being paid out in grants to more British international teams, involving more players going to more overseas countries, than in any previous year in our history. Next year there will be more all round.
I think hon. Members would like to have the full facts and figures on which to judge the Motion for themselves. But, first, I should like to deal with one specific matter—Olympic training. Next year is Olympic year. The winter Olympics are taking place at Sapporo in Japan in February 1972 and the main games in Munich from 26th August to 10th September in that same year. The British Olympic Association is planning to offer British competitors three weeks' training at high altitude shortly before the games, followed by five to 11 days in the Olympic villages. It is doing so for all chosen athletes who take part in endurance events. The House will understand the advantages which accrue from that. The British Olympic Committee's application for grant-aid in this respect is now before my Department, and I am glad to be able to say that we shall deal with this application and the point about high altitude training very generously.
I have also agreed that funds should be available for the travel and training


of our top class sportsmen not only in Olympics and Commonwealth games but for all other competitions of world significance. This is an important change. Previously only the 23 sports admitted to the International Olympic Committee or to the Commonwealth Games were eligible for Government assistance for training, as distinct from travel, which meant that a large number of sports—about 73—were debarred under the previous rules from getting grants towards travel and training teams to represent Britain at these world events.
Henceforth this artificial barrier will no longer be applied and all governing bodies of sport, irrespective of whether they are Olympic sports or not, will be eligible to apply to the new Sports Council for training as well as travel grants. One sport which will benefit is table tennis. I am sure that the House, mindful of the success of our table tennis team in China, will be glad to hear of this new arrangement.
I will now set out the facts on which the House may judge. International grants over recent years have been paid to our sports teams as follows. In 1964–65, the last year of the previous Conservative Government's arrangements, it was £40,500. In 1965–66, the first full year of the hon. Member's conduct of sporting affairs, it was 28,000, a drop of more than a quarter. Over the remaining years of his Government the hon. Gentleman raised the grant to £72,000 in 1966–67, cut it to £62,000 in 1967–68, moved it up to £100,000 in 1968–69, and cut it back again to £75,000 in 1969–70. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to contest the figures?

Mr. Denis Howell: I am not contesting the figures because there was no cut. All the grants applied for by the sports bodies were paid. Naturally, the figures go up and down depending upon how close Olympic year is. No one applied for grant under this programme and was refused.

Mr. Griffiths: I think the hon. Gentleman will regret in a few moments that he said that. I congratulate him on having achieved this "up and down" increase, but what the House and British sport may find a trifle disturbing is that the figures I have quoted from the hon. Gentleman's own record were only shop window

figures. They were the amounts which the hon. Gentleman estimated he would spend on international sports teams, but they bore very little resemblance to the amounts which our sports teams actually received.
In 1966 the hon. Gentleman put £72,000 into his international shop window, but the sum he actually paid out was only £44,000—a shortfall of 40 per cent.

Mr. Howell: Why?

Mr. Griffiths: I am giving the record. In 1968–69, when the hon. Gentleman reached his high-water mark—I give him credit for it—of £100,000 for international sports grant, the amount which the clubs actually received was £50,420 ; in other words, they were short-changed by 50 per cent.
The plain fact is that Labour promises were not matched by Labour performance, But that is not the whole of it. In 1970, during the run-up to the General Election, the hon. Gentleman, for the first time, changed the rules in a more generous direction and, as he very fairly explained, after he attended the Mexico Olympics he thought there was reason to move the proportion of grant up to two-thirds and he got the Sports Council to agree to pay two-thirds of a qualifying team's international travel expenses instead of half.
However, with the dramatic growth in international sport, there was an avalanche of new applications and, as a result, the Sports Council found that the funds appropriated by the hon. Gentleman were hopelessly insufficient to meet his own well-publicised generosity.
The Sports Council—I have the minutes—carefully considered this question. Either it could continue to pay up to two-thirds of the approved travel costs and thereby risk depriving some teams of the chance of taking part at all or it could assist a much larger number of teams by reverting to the pre-election year practice of 50 per cent. travel grants, with the proviso, which still stands, that two-thirds would be offered in exceptional circumstances.
The Sports Council decided by a unanimous vote that it could not accept a state of affairs in which some teams would have no grant at all because the money had been spent in giving more


fortunate or, perhaps, just earlier applications two-thirds of their travel costs. In the Sports Council's view, and in mine, it was better to spread the available butter a little more thinly over more slices of bread so that all might have a chance of at least 50 per cent.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am sorry to intervene yet again, but the last five minutes of the Minister's speech have been beyond belief. If, as he says, there was an avalanche of applications because we increased the incentive by giving two-thirds, and if, as he says, he would have the extra £1½ million for his Sports Council, why did he allow the cut-back on the amount of grant on each individual application from two-thirds to a half, knowing perfectly well that he would get the extra £1 million or £1¼ million which is the main basis of his case today?
I take strong exception to the hon. Gentleman saying—I regard the phrase as contemptuous—that I was shortchanging the sports bodies. The House knows perfectly well what the procedure is. We made provision in our Estimates for the amounts which the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to read out. The fact that the sports bodies themselves did not come forward with enough proposals to take up the whole of those amounts is not evidence of short-changing. It is evidence of the fact that we were prepared to meet every demand made upon us, and we did.

Mr. Griffiths: The evidence is simple. The hon. Gentleman said that he would appropriate a certain amount, and he managed to spend less than half of it. That is short-changing in anyone's book. But the important question is whether the present Government have been able to do any better. The House will be glad to learn that in 1970–71 my Department has been able more than to double the amount of money actually paid out, not just appropriated for international sports team grants. This year, after doubling it last year, we have put up the appropriation by a further 34 per cent. Here is my answer to the words of the Motion. In 1969–70, the last full year for which the hon. Gentleman was responsible, the international grant was

set at £75,000. Last year it was £125,000, a quantum leap of two-thirds, and this year it is £168,000, which is better than twice as much as the hon. Gentleman ever appropriated, and well over three times as much as his Government actually spent in any full year for which he was responsible.
Therefore, I reject the Motion and ask the House rather to accept the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he says that the House

"welcomes Her Majesty's Government's decision to fulfil its election promises by establishing an independent sports council with enhanced status, wider powers and larger funds at their disposal ;"

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. There is just time for the winding-up speeches and one or two more. If each hon. Member speaks for five minutes, less than half those wanting to speak will be able to take part.

Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order. We have listened for all this time to Front Bench speakers, especially the Minister. Their speeches have been timed at a total of 87 minutes, which is far too long in a three-hour debate, and we still have the winding-up speeches to come. As you are the custodian of the rights of back-benchers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do you not feel that it is about time speeches like the one which we have just heard were guillotined to enable back-benchers to have a fairer share of the time, especially during such a short debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. I cannot control the length of speeches. Sometimes I wish that I could, but on the whole I think that I am fortunate not to be able to do so. I agree that speeches on these occasions tend to get too long. Anyway, if hon. Members now speak briefly and to the point they will, I hope, be able to say what they want.

8.48 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: It is important to bring the debate down to the grass roots, and I will try briefly to talk about some of the effects of the recent changes in the regions.
I resigned today as chairman of the South-West Regional Sports Council, a post I have held for 3½ years with great enthusiasm. My resignation had nothing to do with any criticisms I may make. Sport at grass roots level is traditionally non-political, and I hope that it will long remain so. I also hope that other hon. Members may serve as chairmen of sports councils. Such service is a remarkable opportunity to get to work with local authorities.
I do not think that the Minister is sufficiently aware of the sheer practical problems that have arisen from the change of policy, though his right to make the change is clear-cut. It was announced in a telephone message to the secretaries of regional sports councils the day after the announcement to the House. They were suddenly told that the grants would cease. The question of consultation was one thing the hon. Gentleman did not dwell on at all. Voluntary organisations can thrive only on genuine consultation.
It is important for the Government to carry such bodies with them. In the regions the local authorities' co-operation with the regional sports councils has been entirely voluntary, and it was very important to retain confidence. People who have had applications in which have not yet gone to the Ministry, but which are before the technical panels of the sports councils, for insance, are finding themselves in real difficulties. The most glaring example in the South-West Region is the Liskeard swimming pool. I see that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) is present, and I suspect that it may be the Liskeard swimming pool that he is concerned about.
Let us consider the practical effects for Liskeard. People have collected over £3,000 from individual subscriptions for the swimming pool. That is hard to do in a small place like Liskeard. They also have grant aid from their two small local authorities. They are not wealthy people. They had every reason to expect and hope for a grant from the Government to enable them to build their swimming pool. But they ran into a technical problem. They put in their application but unfortunately it did not have quite enough facts and had to be deferred until the next meeting. Meanwhile, however, the guillotine has come down and they find that they cannot get the money from

the Government, because the Government's cut-off takes effect immediately. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's feelings on this issue, he should give thought to phasing this process and tell such people that they can carry on with a certain amount of money for the next year or two. The problem is that local authorities have already made their financial allocations for the year. In any case, the smaller local authorities in particular have not the resources to take aboard this sort of finance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the regional sports councils. The new Sports Council will hold an important position and its money could be used in this way. I hope that he will use the Government's money flexibly and consider the recommendations of regional sports councils to get small local clubs out of this present short-term difficulty. It will cause great disappointment to such clubs if the grants close up for two years or so.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's optimism is justified, but whatever he may say about the long-term trend, many of us fear that in 1971–72 and 1972–73 the overall spending of local authorities will be bad and that we shall not get the figure up to the level that has come from Government grants. The idea of disciplining bad local authorities causes me great concern. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is aiming at and it commends itself, I am sure, to all of us. But the people penalised are really the sportsmen, and one of the great things which the Sports Council has been able to do is to give help where a bad local authority does not give enough responsibility and priority to sport. It is not enough to say, "You must change the local authority". We all know how difficult that is. We also know that changing attitudes towards a sport can take years to achieve.
I believe that the great achievement in this sector of our six years in office has been to change attitudes in sport, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) for that. The regional sports councils have a tremendously difficult task to do, and the sooner the hon. Gentleman gives them a definite programme, and tells us how he sees them fitting in under the new Sports Council, their contribution in advising it


about special facilities in the regions, and how much is forthcoming in grants, the better, because these are all very important aspects.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is to bring Service people more into association with sport. There are large Service establishments in the West Country. None of us on the South-West Regional Sports Council ever felt that we had used the facilities enough. There is, indeed, a lack of facilities for individual Servicemen. Over all, there is not enough co-operation.
My experience has convinced me that the regional sports councils have proved themselves and that one cannot run sport from the centre completely. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be flexible in his allocation of resources for the next two years and to do everything to ensure a proper rôle for the regional sports councils. I have been uncertain about their rôle now for over a year. I had hoped to keep my resignation back until after the changes had been announced and I am only sorry that this has taken such a long time. They need to be supported and to know where they are going. I am convinced that they have an important rôle to play under the new set-up and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make certain that they get it. I remind him that it is the regional sports councils which will get a bad name through the cut-off of capital grants, and this will do damage to their image, which has been built up steadily over the years. We need an undertanding approach from the Minister and a confession that the way in which this matter has been handled so far has been far from satisfactory, that there should have been more consultation and much more collaboration with local authorities and a more realistic understanding of the difficulties at grass root level.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary paid tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). I wish to do the same. His great achievement was persuading local authorities, as they have never been persuaded before, to appreciate their responsibility towards the provision of

recreational facilities. It was a considerable achievement.
I do not agree with the strictures of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) about the new Sports Council. An independent Sports Council, such as my hon. Friend is now proposing, will be able to create a new climate of opinion towards sports provision. It will be able to influence the Government. I have heard some people express the fear that the Government may be putting a millstone around their neck by setting up an independent Sports Council because it will be able freely to criticise the Government whenever it wishes. But it will be able to influence local authorities, voluntary clubs and sports bodies, and to exert influence by the very fact that it has the power to give or withhold grant aid.
I, too, was concerned, and to some extent I still am, about grants for local sports clubs, although I have been considerably reassured by my hon. Friend's comments. Few people who have not been on a local authority appreciate the pressure on local authorities to spend money on many different items. Local authorities have an enormous number of discretionary powers which they would like to use, but which they cannot use simply because they do not have the necessary resources. On the other hand, there are many enlightened authorities, such as my own in Wiltshire, which for many years have given grant aid to sports clubs and which will consider to do so. I hope that the example of counties such as Wiltshire will encourage others to follow suit.

The Amendment notes with approval the intention to continue support for the youth service and to ensure that it is used effectively. I should be horrified if it were not intended to continue to support it, but how does one ensure that the support is effectively used? This is becoming more and more difficult, because an increasingly important part of the work of the youth service is among those who are termed the unattached, those who are away from the statutory or voluntary youth service provision. How can the effect of the youth service on such people be quantified?

In the old days, the youth service was a direct influence on the younger generation in clubs and youth centres and so on,


and it still is up to a point, but increasingly it has an indirect and more subtle influence on ground of the choosing of the young people, out in the community, and it is therefore rather a pity that the Government have decided not to change the name "Youth Service" to "Youth Community Service". They may have made this decision because they have brought to bear a purely educational view. I wonder if the same result would have occurred if the social services department and the Home Office had been involved in consideration of the matter. Nowadays, the Home Office and the social services department are closely involved in this area of policy.

Talking about involvement, the report said that 29 per cent. of the age group is involved with the youth service. I have heard it rumoured that, according to a Government social survey at one time or another no fewer than 69 per cent. had some connection with it. If that is so, it would put a different complexion on the support which the service receives.

Before any major decision about the youth service is made my hon. Friend should look at experience in Europe. What is done in Europe originated from the lead given by this country after the war. In numerous respects the Continent is far ahead of us. If, as seems likely, we go into the Common Market—and I hope that we will—it will be worth remembering that in both France and Germany £2 million a year is spent on youth exchanges.

I do not think the Government should consider "hiving-off" the responsibility for grants in the youth service. I am all for simplifying the system, but that should not mean passing the buck. If the Government want to hive off responsibility for grants, as we already have an Arts Council and are now to have a sports council, perhaps consideration could be given to having a youth council with responsibility for giving aid to voluntary organisations.

I turn now to unemployment among school leavers. This autumn it may be a problem. I would ask my hon. Friend to do all he can to ensure close cooperation between the youth employment service and the youth service so that, for example, youth clubs can be kept open for as long as possible during the day so as to ensure that unemployed school

leavers have somewhere to go to fill in their time thus avoiding alienation of young people.

9.03 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) has had to say. To much of it I would say "Hallelujah". I am sorry that in his final remarks he gave the impression that perhaps the best course for the Government to take to deal with unemployment among school leavers was to provide better youth club facilities for them. The best solution is for the Government to create the job opportunities as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the paucity of resources available for youth exchanges on an international basis as compared with what is available in other European countries. I know from my own direct experience in this work, before entering this House, that one of the difficulties is the legal problem. By definition education is only something which happens to British children within the frontiers of Britain. If we believe that one of the elements of education is to prepare people for a wider sense of international understanding and contact with others in countries near to us geographically then by definition we must spend money bringing these people together. We must make progress in this direction.
In the short time available it is possible to draw attention to only a few points unless one hogs more than one's share of the time. I hope that this brief debate, crammed into a few hours at the end of an evening in Opposition time, is not an indication of the lack of attention, concern and priority which the Government afford to this important and vital social sphere.
It is some years since I was working professionally in the youth service. What distresses me most at the moment is the total breakdown in confidence between so many voluntary organisations and the Government—the feeling that there is no adequate consultation. That cannot be put too strongly. There is a feeling of high-handedness on the part of the Department—a feeling of a lack of sensitivity and of taking into account the experience, feelings and hopes of the


people who are doing this work in so many organisations.
I want to pick out one or two points which appear to be at the centre of the Government's thinking about the future of the youth service. We hear that they will put more emphasis on de-centralisation. People should not necessarily reject the concept of more importance being placed on the direct relationship between local authorities and the youth work that goes on in a local area, but we must take on board the real anxiety that exists among organisations about the possibility that, as a result, they will fall to the bottom of the priority list in terms of local authority expenditure and that at a time when local authorities are faced with financial stringency right across the board the resources will not be available for the sort of important and exciting work that should be done.
We also understand that the Government will concentrate a good deal more on channelling resources into the deprived areas. The real fear amongst people in youth organisations is not that this should happen ; they are delighted that it should happen. But they fear that it will happen by way of economies in other spheres where important and successful youth work is going on. The Government must reassure youth organisations on that point.
The other thing about which there is a great deal of worry among those who are carrying the main burden is the Government's announcement that there is to be a review of the effectiveness of work at national and local level, particularly in respect of voluntary organisations which have financial arrangements with the Government. People are not against the concept of a review ; they would welcome one. But they feel that if it is to be successful it is essential to retain the confidence of the people who have carried the main burden, and will go on doing so. This means that it must be an independent inquiry, set up after the fullest possible discussions with all concerned—an independent inquiry which has the confidence of both sides.
Another concern that I frequently come across is the feeling that the Government are becoming too rigid in respect of the age range with which they say

they are primarily concerned. They say that they will limit their attention to the 14–20 age group, and nothing outside. There is a feeling among those who have been doing the work that if the programme is to be successful there must be more flexibility at both ends.
I know that the Government are making almost a fetish, even in youth work, of the idea of organisations standing on their own two feet, but as somebody who has worked in this sphere I ask the Minister to exercise just a little imagination. Let us consider the important new development that has taken place in recent years—community service by youth. Has the Minister imagined the agonies among young people who are trying to undertake useful social work in the community when they find it increasingly difficult to raise the necessary resources to finance their work, so that more and more of the time which they need for social action is taken up in trying to find the pounds with which their social action can be undertaken?
It is totally unimaginative for the Minister to suggest that youth service organisations will gain an enhanced status if they can stand on their feet. The Government should be saying about these young people, "This is a sound social investment, in terms of the service they are providing ; it is a sound social investment, in terms of the education of the young people involved. We will give more urgent attention to providing the financial resources which will enable this programme to expand". This parsimonious, miserly attitude which seems to be creeping into the Government's approach is very alarming.
It is not good enough to reject all the specialist work done in previous years. It is time that we had a White Paper setting out the Government's thoughts on the development of the youth service. Such a White Paper would provide an ideal opportunity to take into account the relevant and important views of the Home Office and other Government Departments concerned with the social problems intimately related to the new type of development in youth work. Until we have the opportunity to debate a coordinated presentation of the Government's thinking, we shall be pecking away at the problem in a totally inadequate fashion.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I am the third ex-chairman of a regional sports council who has spoken in the debate. I wish to add to the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Denis Howell), who started the Sports Council. Although I did not agree with some of its methods, it was a beginning of which the hon. Gentleman has the right to be proud.
What I found particularly frustrating when I was chairman of a regional sports council was the way in which everything done had to be advisory. We had to spend a great deal of time trying to get local authorities on-side. The regional sports council, and indeed the Sports Council itself, had no powers. It seems that the new Sports Council will have direct powers to grant money and that it will be given teeth. I hope that very soon we shall have some indication about where the regional sports council will fit in.
I support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) that we should have a White Paper on the sports councils and recreation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of bringing in other Departments and obtaining a co-ordinated series of views. We could see in such a White Paper what was planned and where the regional sports councils fitted in. It is most important that the work that they have done—the preliminary surveys of facilities and the opportunities in their regions for joint ventures—should not be wasted but should be co-ordinated under Dr. Bannister's Sports Council so that the maximum use can be made of sports facilities. As what is referred to as the Fourth Wave—the wave of leisure—progresses, sports facilities will be used almost round the clock, at least until late at night.
I wish to make the plea that the new Sports Council should pay particular attention to minority sports. In view of the high cost of some of these sports, it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide the necessary facilities and facilities for training. I hope that sports like fencing will get a fair crack of the whip from the new Sports Council.
In conclusion, I welcome the fact that the Government are now dealing at arms'

length with sport and are not directly interfering with it. We must all watch like hawks to make sure that the funds which are made available are increased over the years to come.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the political umpire, and I shall try in our limited time tonight to act as a 100 metres runner rather than a 10,000 metres runner. We have had a useful and very important debate. All of us who have been overseas will know the importance of international sport, and I shall touch on that in a moment. Many people are brought close to it through television. There were the European Games at Athens. There was our nation of 50 million people represented and third ; the Soviet Union, with 200 million second. But who won the Games? A nation which has not yet been given de jure status—East Germany. Its flag was flying there and, through the television, for all the nations of the world to see. It is a small State of 18 million people, but very important politically. It is important that we should show the flag, not in the old-fashioned sense at the masthead of a battleship, but at athletics meetings, at international games, Olympics and so forth.
I represent Hull, where they work hard and they play hard. We have sportsmen—boxers, Rugby League players, besides soccer. I inquired of the people on Humberside to find out what they knew about this new Sports Council, and I found that they knew little or nothing about it. So we come to the magic word "participation" which is in vogue in local government and which is in vogue in international affairs. Where has been the participation in this case—at Leeds or Hull or elsewhere? Indeed, one of the councillors in my constituency told me that he had not even heard about what is happening. So we fault the Minister here, for his lack of thought, for his insensitivity, his lack of democracy, for behaving in almost a fascist or totalitarian sense, almost imposing upon sport his idea which, he said earlier, was put in the Conservative election manifesto. The whole thing was in his mind quite a long while ago. One of the unhappy features for people in the localities is that this new set-up is imposed upon them.
In an earlier exchange we had the Minister and a former Minister almost like Cassius Clay versus Joe Frazier, one saying, "I did", and the other, "I did not". I should like a White Paper not, as is usual, about the future, but about the past, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) did. The facts must be there, and we should have the evidence before us. We who have been here during the last six years know what has happened, but I should like a White Paper about this.
International sport is so important and yet we are told by the former Minister that the 66⅔ grants have gone down to 50 per cent. The Minister may like to know that sporting bodies do come to this House of Commons ; they come to see back bench Members on either side, as well as to see Ministers in their offices. What do they tell us? We heard a few moments ago about the less fashionable sports, whether international or local, swimming, skating, tennis, athletics. We are told—and we must believe these decent honourable men who tell us—that they lack money. Where is this wonderful kitty the Minister was talking about earlier—all these millions he is putting into the scales so that we can do better? Will whoever winds up the debate tell use more about the financial help which is to be given to these unfashionable or lesser known sports which were mentioned?
In the context of the outside world, publicity, knowledge and participation it is most important that the chairman, as in the past, should be a Minister. It is democratic, it opens up the councils activities and sweeps away the cobwebs to have Questions in the House. The people in Leeds or Hull via their M.P. can find out what is happening from the Minister. Here we have a non-democratic body, accountable neither to the House nor to the public, but working behind doors.

Mr. Denis Howell: With no appeal.

Mr. Johnson: With no appeal. So it is important internationally, locally and democratically that a Minister should continue to be in the chair. It gives status when the Minister, as chairman of the council, comes to a particular town ; it confers importance and lustre upon what is happening locally.
Dr. Bannister is a wonderful athlete. I yield to no one in my admiration for his performances. But Dr. Bannister for two days a week? It is not sufficient. This is a full-time job. I advise the Minister to think again about this, and to put a man in this job, whether or not he is an athlete, who will give his full time to the task.
What the Minister said about the money he is to spend is laudable. The last thing I want to do is to make a political cockpit of athletics and games. If the Minister wants to make a success of his job and if he wants the Opposition to think better of him than his performance tonight warrants, he had better carry out all those pledges, election or not. Let him keep those pledges so that we can say he has done a good job. We shall judge him on his performance, not on his words at the Box tonight when he has been indulging almost in a slanging match with his predecessor.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: I will deal briefly with one or two points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. First, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) that the number of Questions asked here is the best test of administrative efficiency. It is, of course, a useful way of casting a spotlight, but there are other ways of doing this.
I think the status accorded to the new Sports Council is right, with two provisos. It is important that it should publish an annual report and that that report should be debated annually in the House. We can track what is being done in that way. The status of the new Sports Council is right because it has a number of points in its favour. First, the grant-aiding function is important. Funds are to be handed over to it in toto and it can start straight away on its work.
On the transitional problem of clubs which are worried about the present situation, they are naturally and understandably worried, but it would have been difficult to get the new Sports Council started in the new framework unless the slate had been wiped clean straight away and the concept of the Sports Council disbursing its own money in its own way as it thought fit had been introduced from the word "go". If


there had been a great time lag and a backlog of decisions, with funds being subtracted from what was available to the Sports Council, I believe the work of the new Sports Council would have been much more difficult.
The general principle of pushing decision-making outwards from politicians to sportsmen and from Westminster and Whitehall to the various local authorities is the best practice. I believe local people are able to take better decisions than we can on these matters, and I believe they can take them more quickly. There is a considerable bureaucratic delay and waste of time and valued manpower if decisions have to go backwards and forwards for approval to Westminster—decisions which could have been taken with greater local knowledge on the spot.
On the matter of membership of the Sports Council, there is always a temptation to try to represent everybody on such a body. I hope the Sports Council will resist the temptation. I hope it will choose the best people, and I hope the regional councils will produce a representative element in geographical terms. The sports bodies will then have their own voice. I feel that the Sports Council will operate best if the best people are there in their own right and if my hon. Friend does not strive to achieve to exact a representative balance.
I should like to give one word of advice to the council. I hope it will not forget the educational principles laid down by Lady Plowden about the need to remember the priority areas where the need is very great in terms of social requirement. The local authority will want to add its own voice and make its special case on such matters. I hope such authorities will be listened to when grants are disbursed.
Also to be considered is the matter of balance between national excellence and more general participation and, of course, these matters are linked. Young people wish to emulate national standards which they see on television, and there will follow a desire to participate. If, however, in the disbursement of funds the balance is tilted in a certain way, I hope it will be in favour of opportunities for people to participate in sport rather than towards national needs, particularly

in some of the sports which my hon. Friend mentioned which are more attractive to sponsorship and which can be assisted in that way.
I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the need to encourage fuller use of sports and recreational facilities to make them more readily available to everybody. This goes particularly for the Forestry Commission, which has done enough damage to the countryside. It owes the country a great deal in balancing the picture, despite the recreational provision it has already made. The water authorities have also been mentioned, and what remains to be done is enormous. Commercial firms can help in this respect, and there is a great need to stimulate partnership between one user and another. In conclusion, I wish Dr. Bannister great success in his task. He is an admirable choice.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Terry Davis: I, too, wish to express concern about the effect of the Minister's decision on local sports clubs. In the area of North Worcestershire which I represent, we do not have a professional football club. We do not have an army base with sports facilities which can be developed. We do not have a reservoir available for water sports. But we do have a rapidly growing population ; a new town and a tremendous demand for recreational facilities.
The previous policy has worked very well for Worcestershire. I understand that the Worcestershire Squash Racquets Association, for example, has now developed a league as a direct result of the expansion of facilities which have flowed from the grants received from the regional council for physical recreation. We also have a great need for sports centres and especially for multi-purpose sports centres. The Minister referred to this development but it seemed to me that he was talking in national terms.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths indicated dissent.

Mr. Davis: The Minister shakes his head, but he was talking about large-scale multi-purpose sports centres. My interest in North Worcestershire is in small sports centres. We have one which is being established and developed just outside my constituency at Droitwich.


That centre is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and is halfway through its development. The changing accommodation has been built. The cricket ground has been prepared. However, other projects will not be completed, as I understand the Minister's announcement. We have a similar proposal in Bromsgrove to convert a cricket club into a multi-sports centre. It is a small-scale centre, but it is important to the people of Bromsgrove.
As I have said, we do not have a reservoir, but we do have a new town at Redditch, where there is an embryo sailing club which proposes to use a man-made lake. Only last week, a representative of the Central Council for Physical Recreation visited Redditch to say that, as a result of the Minister's announcement, his council was unable to help with a grant. The people in Redditch who wish to establish a sailing club appear to have been told by the Minister that they should look to their local authority for help. However, the authority is already experiencing great pressure on its rates as a result of the new town development, and it is difficult to see how help can come from that quarter. Alternatively, the Minister says, the people must depend on their own efforts ; in other words, they should stand on their own feet.
The Minister referred to his party's Election promises. I assure him that the sportsmen of Worcestershire did not think that they were voting for the kind of rushed policy that the hon. Gentleman has announced. They did not realise that they were voting for a situation where his Department would inform the regional body by telephone of the Government's decision at a time when it was preparing its list of priorities. In North Worcestershire, we are extremely distressed at the hon. Gentleman's announcement.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done. The principle of having an independent council must be right, and I support it. I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby) said about it. It is right that it should report to Parliament

at least once a year so that hon. Members have an opportunity to question what it has done in the past 12 months. I think that that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson).
I am also very pleased that my hon. Friend has seen fit to give the council grant-aiding powers. That brings me to my second point, which concerns local councils and trusts which have been set up only to find themselves landed with the quick curtailment of grant. In my constituency there is such a body in Ashbourne. It was about to apply to the regional council for a grant. There were problems over the acquisition of land by the local authority, and for that reason it held up its application. However, the local trust had raised £20,000 for the project. A third was to come from the county, with the remainder from the local council, together with the grant from the regional sports council. The grant is available no longer, and it occurs to me to wonder whether my hon. Friend cannot follow the suggestion of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) about phasing out grants over a period of, say, 18 months. Failing that, will it be possible for the new council to take up what has been dropped as a result of the existing curtailment? I rather doubt it.
I agree with the criticism that has been made that, now that these matters are in local government hands, this kind of expenditure is liable to go to the bottom of a local authority's priorities when it is considering other important factors of spending in its district.
My hon. Friend spoke about the additional uses and priorities upon which the new council will concentrate. He said that it would try to encourage the greater use of reservoirs. There are a fair number of reservoirs in my part of the world, and it is sad that they are not more widely used. Anything that can be done to accelerate their use will be greatly appreciated by people in the areas immediately surrounding them and, indeed, by people who will come from much further afield to enjoy the facilities.
There is the further problem concerning access to our national parks. I do no more than refer to it, in view of the short time remaining for the debate.
Finally, I raise my voice in protest at the fact that we have listened to 100 minutes of speeches from the two Front Benches out of a total debate of 150 minutes. That is not a good balance.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I, too, will be brief. I shall try to confine my remarks to a "four-minute mile."
The Minister's action will tend to penalise rural areas, because they depend on grants to supplement their voluntary efforts. In the Bassetlaw area, which nobody has ever heard about, we have the famous Bassetlaw cricket league. Several villages are in this league. In the 320 square miles of my constituency there are only two cinemas and one dance hall. Yet everybody is sports mad. It is virtually the only activity in which youth can take part in in a rural area. This is why it has produced players like Mick Jones and other international footballers. There is nothing to do but hunt foxes or kick a ball.
The rural areas will suffer because if a county council has money to spend it has to expend it on the best possible cost effectiveness basis. Therefore, it will spend the money in the towns and areas of dense population where more people will use, for example, a swimming pool or other facility. This is common sense. But in the rural areas the local villages with their cricket teams or youth clubs will suffer. In the past they have supplemented their facilities by writing to me asking how to get grants from the Government. I have put them on to the East Midlands Regional Sports Council and in most cases they have been successful, because they have been backed by local effort. These rural areas tend to be mainly conservative, so the Minister will find a lot of pressure put upon him by upset local bodies of opinion.
I think that the Minister's tremendous faith in local authorities is not justified. There is a system for helping them to create sports facilities, but they do not take advantage of it. I refer to derelict areas. There are many slag heaps not only in my constituency, but in others nearby. There are ponds among these slag heaps. Children are forever sailing rafts on those ponds in the summer or skating on them in winter, and often they fall in. The Sheffield Morning

Telegraph has run an extensive campaign to protect children from this danger. The local councils can get 75 per cent. grants towards the cost of filling in the ponds and landscaping the slag heaps to turn them into playing areas. Very few local authorities have taken advantage of this system ; it is always at the bottom of their priorities. This is the kind of setup which the Minister envisages with the co-operation of the regional sports councils. But the local authorities are not claiming the grants because they are refusing to find the other 25 per cent. They always make excuses.
Not all authorities are like that. The Nottinghamshire County Council, which is Tory-controlled, has made Holme Pier-point, an area of clayworks and derelict land which floods, into a national rowing centre where people can have Olympic sculling, and so on. The Labour Government put up about £250,000 and the Nottinghamshire County Council made the rest available. It has a first-class record in sports complexes. There is one at Bingham, which my hon. Friend opened, and another at Worksop. However, because of cost effectiveness, such facilities have to be in areas of high population, and the rural areas are therefore heavily penalised.
The Minister spoke about co-operative use of sports facilities. He is kidding himself if he thinks that he will have any success in that direction. We wish him every success. However, I cannot see two professional football teams, such as Manchester City and Manchester United, sharing the same ground or Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United sharing the same ground. It is obvious that there would be a tremendous saving if that could be brought about, but there has been and will be little progress because of local prejudices and antagonism between rural district and county councils over the different things involved. I hope that the Minister will re-examine the policy and see why the system of providing 75 per cent. grants to local authorities for converting slag heaps into sports facilities and play areas is failing.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. John Sutcliffe: May I put two pleas to the Minister before he winds up the debate. I have literally one minute in which to do that.
I speak as the chairman of a local association affiliated to the National Association of Youth Clubs, and a very worried chairman indeed. Would my hon. Friend tell me precisely what will take the place of the youth and community work referred to in the report as a guide to the youth service as a whole over the next 10 years? Would he please give an undertaking to consult whichever body he chooses to replace the Youth Service Development Council? Whether it be the Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organisations, or whatever it is, will he consult it on the question of partnership, of grants, capital and headquarters, and on all the matters that are being considered? For a Conservative Government not to give all possible encouragement to voluntary youth work would be disastrous.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the Minister for Sport is candid, he will admit that he is a very uncomfortable man, because during the debate we have had a whole series of extremely serious and well-informed contributions from both sides of the House, from all parts of the country, amounting to a rather devastating criticism of what the Government are up to.
I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) had tumbled to something which perhaps the Government have not, and that is the extent to which both those responsible for the training of youth leaders and the local authorities themselves have already geared themselves to the philosophy of the Paper of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), "Youth and Community in the 70's".
I concede that that is not a perfect document. My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath never claimed that it was—but it did at least add up to a coherent plan, and whatever minor gaps there may have been, at least it tacked the problems not so much of youth but of the "young adult" in society. The document was realistic, it was practical and, above all, it was costed.
I agree that some changes may have been necessary, but what the Secretary of

State for Education and Science has done has been to dismiss this concept of youth and community service without offering any alternatives whatsoever. Is there not an obligation on these Secretaries of State who suddenly change gear to select somewhat carefully their new speed and their new direction? Until now in this debate we have detected no sign that there is a new direction.
The nub and crunch of the report is that youth work is an invitation to young people to become involved in the stuggle to build a society that is just, compassionate and, indeed, participant. Is that right or wrong? If it is wrong, what would the critics put in its place.
My fear is that under the Government's proposed arrangements—and I think that the Secretary of State will take this in the way it is meant—youth work will become more and more like a pale second-rate imitation of commercial entertainment of young people, ever-dependent on the usual things—darts, dancing and table tennis—and appealing more and more only to the young male teenager, and more and more to the immature. My own experience in a previous incarnation before I came to the House of the 18 months on board a ship-school justifies the fears that I am expressing. It is only too easy for that to happen, and the present system will simply pass by many of the lively and energetic young men and women who, under an all-too-thin layer of sophistication, may be in real need of help.
What matters is that the many dedicated people, outside the House, engaged in youth work should be wiser if they read tomorrow's HANSARD, and we look to the hon. Gentleman for some sense of direction to be marked out in this debate. What has happened is that an imaginative scheme of youth work devised by my hon. Friend has been nipped in the bud. The Youth Service Development Council, given birth by Albemarle, has been brought, at the age of 10, to a somewhat premature death. Nothing, but nothing, has been put in its place. We have been left with a vacuum.
We are bound to raise the question of the independent Sports Council chairman. The Minister said that it was not good that he should be a lobbyist for funds. But, like many others, I have


known Roger Bannister for 10 years. He is an excellent chairman, and we know his contribution to British athletics and the track. But the notion that he can do in two days a week the job that my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath did seven days a week is simply fanciful.
This brings up the key rôle of the chairman. If he is to be seen and to talk to people and to do his job as he must, he will not have many free weekends between one Christmas and another, albeit the Minister "will assist him in his endeavours". Does the Minister recognise that there are 170 governing bodies in sport? How accessible is Dr. Bannister meant to be? If this job is to be done properly, it demands a great deal of mixing with people, and not someone who, through no fault of his own, is limited to the top of Mount Sinai, which seems to be the rôle that is being devised.
I know from Cliff Lloyd today that the Minister met the Professional Footballers Association in early June. It is now mid-July. I do not criticise the delay, but the Government must understand that the association's request for an independent tribunal with an independent, legally-qualified chairman which has wide support. It is in accord with natural justice that players should be represented on the disciplinary committee and that there should be an ability to appeal against a decision of the disciplinary committee, provided that the appeal is endorsed by the player's professional association and is not frivolous.
In my opinion, there is a principle here which goes far wider than the P.F.A. In the new set-up proposed by the Government, what provision will there be for players and participants, as opposed to governing bodies, to be represented at the highest level?
The Minister said that local authorities were less unenlightened than my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath thought. But the Minister should place himself in the position of some hard-pressed member of a local authority at his wits' end how to balance the revenue and expenditure. They are only being human if, under the new system, they decide that there are perhaps more important priorities than expenditure on sport. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), the former

Secretary of State, will understand this very well.
The danger is that in authority after authority the steady and real, if undramatic, growth of local sports initiative which has been carefully built up over the last five years will lose its momentum. For example, the Minister wrote to me on 24th May, in reply to representations which we had had from the National Skating Association :
As for the provision of facilities in this country, indoor rinks have in the past been provided by commercial companies and by local authorities.
Under the new system, what councillor in his right mind will propose any substantial funds for a new skating rink? This is just one example. More's the pity for this sport, because we as a country should take more heed of provision for girls as well as boys—and skating is one of the sports in which massive participation by girls is possible.
What bothers me is the position of the growing number of still minor sports referred to, for example, by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison). Alexander Flinder, chairman of the British Sub-Aqua Club, gives this rather dour account of a meeting on 24th June, when the chairmen of the governing bodies met the hon. Gentleman to hear about the new Sports Council :
The meeting was shocked at the implication of the Government's intention to phase out the local capital grants scheme. This excellent scheme has proved the most successful method of encouraging local enterprise, and setting up of regional sports facilities in areas which were devoid of these amenities. My own organisation, which has more than doubled its national membership in the last five years, could not have achieved this without grants towards the cost of expensive equipment installations.
This story could be repeated many times among smaller sports.
This is not the occasion for synthetic rage across the Floor, but we want the Minister to understand that there are those of us who have moved in sports circles during the last 10 years who cannot fail to detect the dampening effect of the Government's new measures on the enthusiasts who have made British sport what it is. So it is with a sense of incredulity at the short-sightedness of what is being done on the youth side and with a sense of sadness at what is being


done on the sports side that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby to condemn the Government tonight.

9.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I well understand that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was, as I am, under a close discipline of time. I am sure that he and the House will be understanding if I have to deal swiftly with the arguments which have been presented by the hon. Gentleman and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to say on his behalf that he will wish to write to hon. Members who raised specific matters subsequently to his speech, and I hope that that will be regarded as according with the courtesies of the House.
I respond at once to the hon. Gentleman's request—I do not think it necessary, but he does—for a new direction in the youth service. Briefly, because of the time, I shall explain the new direction already signalled by my right hon. Friend's announcement which appeared in HANSARD on 29th March. With respect to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West, whose temporary absence from the Chamber I regret, it is not factually correct to say that all the recommendations in the report by the Youth Service Development Council have been rejected.
As for what a good many people, such as myself in a small way, who have been closely connected with the youth world in one way or another, would regard as the grandiose conception of a centralised youth and community service based on what many, again including myself, would regard as the untried philosophy of the "active society", I make no apology for saying that that has been rejected. But, as I shall show in the few minutes available, a number of other proposals have been accepted.
It is our view that we do not require a centralised service. It follows from that, as the report itself shows, that a successor council is not necessary. Indeed, the

report goes out of its way to say that there would be no point in having an advisory council for its own sake.
Here are the Government's priorities. They accept a number of the priorities stated in the report. For example, they accept those for the socially deprived, in particular, early school leavers, and for the young immigrant. They accept—this is the direct answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West, for he is quite wrong in what he says, and the matter is clear in my right hon. Friend's announcement—that the age limits of 14 to 20 should be interpreted liberally in accordance with the recommendations in the report.
The point of difference is that we on this side do not accept that there is one central road to success. What we require is not splendid phrases but practical support for initiatives from wherever they come.
Under the present arrangements, as has been said, a 50 per cent. grant is paid from the centre. We are in the Department today—or, rather, we were—administering a large number of small grants. I regard this as inefficient, expensive, and inappropriate. Further, it favours the better off areas of the country at the expense of the less wealthy. The revised arrangements under discussion with both local authorities and the voluntary bodies—and no words of mine can emphasise enough the importance the Government attach to the voluntary bodies—are that from April next year the detailed supervision should be undertaken by the authorities and no longer at the centre, and that there should be a pound-for-pound grant from the centre, matching each pound made available by the authorities, with a maximum of a third. Therefore, it is open to such a project today to obtain a third from the local authority and a third from the Government, with, I believe, much better results for the project as a whole.
I accept that if I ended there and gave no more there would be overall savings. But the announcement has made it crystal clear, as has the Amendment, that the Government's intention is to maintain in real terms its support for the youth service. That means, for example, that there will still be vested in the centre the ability to provide 50 per cent. grants for the cost of a few projects of national


or regional importance. There will still be vested in the centre—and this is very important in the light of what was said earlier—the ability to invest in the youth service by the machinery of the urban programme, which ties in exactly with the priorities I gave earlier, and the ability to respond to experimental projects which are initiated locally, or to initiate them.
All this adds up to a new and distinct approach. Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, I do not accept for a moment the Opposition's narrow approach towards local authorities. I do not understand how a party which less than 24 hours ago was lambasting me for not giving greater freedom to local authorities is now lambasting me for giving them greater freedom. In a large number of places that freedom will serve to cement together the work of the local authorities and of the voluntary bodies, both of which are of the greatest importance. This is a very useful step forward. The social priorities can be achieved through the mechanisms of the urban programmes. In particular,

there is still vested in the centre the ability to initiate and respond to interesting developments.

In common with many other hon. Members, I have spent a considerable time in a voluntary youth organisation. I entirely accept that in some cases, regrettably, the relations between such organisations and local authorities are not good. But it is a policy of despair which proceeds on the basis that they can never be improved. The right way to improve them is to give encouragement to the local authority to make provision for its youth service by a matching pound-for-pound contribution from the centre. That is the change of emphasis. It does not require a centralised administrative machinery. It is diffusing responsibility entirely in accordance with our philosophy, and that is why I commend the Amendment to the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made :—

The House divided : Ayes 190, Noes 161.

Division No. 433.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Astor, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Baker, Kenneth (St. Mnrylebone)
Emery, Peer
Iremonger, T. L.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eyre, Reginald
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Beamish, Col. Sir. Tufton
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
James, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fidler, Michael
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Benyon, W.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kershaw, Anthony


Biffen, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kilfedder, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Fortescue, Tim
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Body, Richard
Fowler, Norman
Kinsey, J. R.


Boscawen, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Knox, David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fry, Peter
Lane, David


Bowden, Andrew
Gardner, Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gibson-Watt, David
Le Marchant, Spencer


Braine, Bernard
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bray, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip



Brewis, John
Gorst, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Loveridge, John


Bryan, Paul
Green, Alan
Luce, R. N


Buck, Antony
Grieve, Percy
McAdden Sir Stephen


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
MacArthur, Ian


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gummer, Selwyn
McCrindle, R. A.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Madel, David


Clegg, Walter
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Marten, Neil


Coombs, Derek
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mather, Carol


Cooper, A. E.
Haselhurst, Alan
Maude, Angus


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hay, John
Mawby, Ray


Cormack, Patrick
Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Critchley, Julian
Hiley, Joseph
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Crouch, David
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Moate, Roger


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Dean, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Monro, Hector


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
More, Jasper




Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Neave, Aircy
Ridsdale, Julian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trew, Peter


Normanton, Tom
Rost, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Nott, John
Russell, Sir Ronald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Scott, Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Paisley, Rev. Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wall, Patrick


Peel, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Ward, Dame Irene


Percival, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Warren, Kenneth


Pink, R. Bonner
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Pounder, Rafton
Soref, Harold
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Spence, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sproat, lain
Wiggin, Jerry


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Belper)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Raison, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Redmond, Robert
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Sutcliffe, John



Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Norman
Mr Keith Speed.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Allen, Scholefield
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt. Hon. Frederick


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Oram, Bert


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Palmer, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Hanman, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Booth, Albert
Harper, Joseph
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, Ernest G.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prescott, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
lrvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roper, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sandelson, Neville


Cohen, Stanley
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lambie, David
Sillars, James


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julius


Dalyeil, Tam
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Davidson, Arthur
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Leonard, Dick
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lipton, Marcus
Taverne, Dick


Deakins, Eric
Lomas, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Delargy, H. J.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dempsey, James
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Dormand, J. D.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mackintosh, John P.
Tuck, Raphael


Driberg, Tom
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, David


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marks, Kenneth
Weitzman, David


Evans, Fred
Marquand, David
Wellbeloved, James


Faulds, Andrew
Marsden, F.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitehead, Phillip


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Foley, Maurice
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. James A. Dunn.

Main Question, as amended, put :—

The House divided : Ayes 190, Noes 161.

Division No. 434.]
AYES
[10.11 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Gummer, Selwyn
Peel, John


Awdry, Daniel
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Pink, R, Bonner


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pounder, Rafton


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, W.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Proud foot, Wilfred


Biffen, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hay, John
Raison, Timothy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Redmond, Robert


Body, Richard
Hiley, Joseph
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, James Southampton, Test)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bowden, Andrew
Holland, Philip
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hornby, Richard
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Braine, Bernard
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Ridsdale, Julian


Bray, Ronald
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brewis, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rost, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Bryan, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott, Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
James, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shellton, William (Clapham)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Chapman, Sydney
Kilfedder, James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Soref, Harold


Clegg, Walter
Kinsey, J. R.
Spence, John


Coombs, Derek
Knox, David
Sproat, lain


Cooper, A. E.
Lane, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Cormack, Patrick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Critchley, Julian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sutcliffe, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Loveridge, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul
Luce, R. N.
Tebbit, Norman


Desdes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McAdden, Stephen
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Dykes, Hugh
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Edwards. Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Trew, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Elliott, n. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Eyre, Reginald
Madel, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fell, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fidler, Michael
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fowler, Norman
Moate, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fox, Marcus
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wiggin, Jerry


Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector
Wilkinson, John


Gardner, Edward
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Glyn Dr. Alan
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Gorst, John
Normanton, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Gower, Raymond
Nott, John
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Keith Speed.


Green, Alan
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Booth, Albert
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carmichacl, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Tom
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Barnett, Joel
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cohen, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Coleman, Donald


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)




Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Cunningham, C. (Islington, S. W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jone, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Judd, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rankin, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lambic, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Delargy, H. J.
Lawson, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leonard, Dick
Sandelson, Neville


Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dunn, James A.
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Evans, Fred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dermis


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Spearing, Nigel


Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stallard, A. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David
Taverne, Dick


Garrett, W. E.
Marsden, F.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Golding, John
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Torney, Tom


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William
Weitzman, David


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hefter, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitlock, William


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Bert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)



Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. William Hamling and


Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Irvinc, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Resolved,
That this House welcomes Her Majesty's Government's decision to fulfil its election promises by establishing an independent sports council with enhanced status, wider powers and larger funds at their disposal ; believes the

sports council should have wide discretion in the allocation of those funds for local and regional purposes ; and notes with approval the intention to continue support for the Youth Service and to ensure that it is used effectively.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Diplomatic and Other Privileges Bill and the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords], may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Monro.]

DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER PRIVILEGES BILL

Considered in Committee ; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee ; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS LEVY

10.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.
This small change in the arrangements for the cinematograph films levy has been recommened to me by the Cinematograph Films Council, and I feel that it is right that it should be made. I suggest that I briefly describe the effect of the Regulations, and then I shall be happy, with leave, to reply to any points or give any information which the House requires after I have heard what hon. Members say.
The main change proposed in the Regulations is to raise the exemption limit by which small cinemas are exempt from paying the Eady levy. It is at present £400, and the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association asked in the Council that it should be raised to £450. The Council debated the question of the levy at some length but decided that it was not wise to advise a change in the level of the levy ; but it recommended an increase in the exemption limit to £500. I personally believe this is right, and the Government have made the necessary Regulations to enable the Council's advice to become operative. I think it will help a few small cinemas which hitherto have fallen just on the wrong side of the exemption limit and it may save them from going out of business at what is admittedly a difficult time for such small cinemas.
The Regulations have been agreed by the industry as a whole and the Films Council, and I therefore commend them to the House.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: The hon. Gentleman was certainly brief. I hope that, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will take more time to reply to the questions which must be asked.
When Regulations of this kind come before the House the test which should be applied, when we are altering the levy exemptions and deciding whether more should be exempt or less, should be : what effect will it have upon British film production? Obviously it will have effects upon confidence in the industry, and so upon production and upon investment, and if confidence is adversely affected, not only is that bad for the industry and for all who work in it, but it will not help the cinemas either, because the volume of production will be less, and choice restricted, with a subsequent effect upon cinema audiences. I will return to that in a few moments.
First of all, from the exhibitors' point of view, cinemas have been closing at a quite rapid rate. More than 3,000 cinemas were in existence before 1960. The number had dropped to 1,772 in 1967. The cinemas had been closing at the rate of about 100 per year since that time. I wonder, first of all, whether the Minister expects any slowing down of


this trend because of the increased number of cinemas which will be exempt from paying the levy.
Secondly, the Minister is seeking Parliament's consent for the exemption rate in paying the levy to be raised from £400 per week to £500 per week, taking earnings on the average throughout the year, an increase of £100, but in view of inflation, labour costs, and so forth, during the last few years since the rate was changed in 1968, can the Minister say what the real increase is to be? What really is the small establishment, the seaside exhibitor, going to gain from this £100 exemption? I gather that nearly 100 more cinemas will be exempt by raising the rate of exemption figure. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us how many independent cinemas will now be freed from levy and how many will be free of levy within the service.
My third point from the exhibitors' point of view is that in the 1968 levy change we also dealt with some changes in the distribution levy. I have in mind, of course, newsreels and the low-cost films. In view of the fact that labour costs have risen so much in the last few years and that the test for helping low-cost film production is based upon labour costs, I am wondering whether the Minister might give an indication to the House how low-cost film producers have fared since the 1968 alteration and whether he has any intention in due course of altering the distribution percentages again.
Production is the core of the problem. If production is endangered the independent cinemas and those on the circuits will be affected, and if there is a cutback in British film production because of a smaller yield from the levy, not only will choice be limited but the quota will be in jeopardy. From the film producers' point of view a reduction of the levy by exempting more cinemas could be a direct threat to production. By exempting more cinemas, investment in the industry is likely to be less attractive, especially in British productions, and, following the hon. Gentleman's statement about gradually withdrawing Government finance from the British film industry, this constitutes a double blow to British film production.
If, because of this, there is a reduction in film production, our export earnings will be adversely affected and enthusiasm for American investment will be dampened. These are adverse effects that could quickly flow from the exemptions announced by the Minister. Because we agreed when in office that the National Film School should take a share of the levy fund, there will be still less money available for British production.
In the past 12 months there has been a distinct change in Government policy towards the film industry. It seems to be a policy of madness. Does the hon. Gentleman realise where this policy is leading? He must be trying deliberately to kill British film production. His impositions on the National Film Finance Corporation and the reduction of its loan-making powers, allied to less money from the levy, are bound to affect production, employment, and the use of studios, and to lessen confidence in the future of the British film industry. That is a daunting prospect for all in the film industry.
I gather that the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association asked for the exemption minimum to be raised from £400 to £450. Why did the hon. Gentleman agree to £500? Why did the Cinematograph Films Council recommend £500?
At the end of 1969 there were 1,581 cinemas. The cinemas that were exempt from paying the levy because their takings were less than £400 per week numbered 706. This new exemption limit will release another 96 cinemas, bringing the total exemptions to 802. That means that more than half the cinemas in the country will not be paying anything towards British film production, and there will be a further loss of £76,000 to the British film producer.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will take a little time to answer those queries. I am not satisfied that the Regulations are in the interests of the producers and exhibitors as a whole and, therefore, this change does not meet with my approval.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In the ordinary course of events it is possible that the change which is proposed in these Regulations, which is of a relatively minor character, might have escape detailed criticism in the House,


but my right hon. Friend has made it clear that this is not the ordinary course of events.
The Regulations are placed before the House in circumstances in which the Under-Secretary of State has become a monster in the eyes of the British film industry. He is quoted in the today's "Cinema"—dated Friday, 19th July—as saying that it is not the Government's policy to put money into industries, especially industries like this which have no strategic or defence implications. [HON. MEMBERS : "Hear, hear."] The implications behind that statement are appalling. This is philistinism run rampant because it is the policy of the Government, according to the hon. Gentleman, to be concerned only with putting money into defence and strategic industries and to be totally unconcerned with anything outside that sector. I doubt whether others among his hon. Friends will be quite so carried away by his remarks as those present seem to be. Some hon. Members opposite do not follow him in the policy which he expressed in that statement.
This Order has the effect in a minor way of transferring some of the money—failing to transfer it would, perhaps, be a more correct way of putting it—from exhibition into production, which is the effect of the levy. It is a redistribution of money within the film industry. It is in this case a matter not of the Government using public money but of approving the redistribution of money within the industry. The Order provides that a little less money shall go towards production and that a little more money shall remain in exhibition.
In the normal course of events, one might have said that this is a relatively minor matter. But what troubles many people is the odd sense of priorities which the Government show. This in itself is a fairly small change but the hon. Gentleman announced a most major change the other day. He chose to do so in a Written Answer put down by a stooge on the benches opposite. It was a cowardly thing to do and discourteous to the House. By doing it in that way, he succeeded in avoiding a debate on the subject. I shall not be able to travel too far along what should be the real subject of this debate—the bigger change he announced then—because I am bound

to confine my remarks very largely to this Order and I do not want to overstrain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there should be an opportunity to debate not only this Order but the major change in policy in the decision to withdraw Government finance from the British film production industry. That decision is a very disturbing element and this Order is a small step in the same direction.
Apparently, the National Film Finance Corporation is to be wound up, although it is a most valuable source of finance for British films and has kept the industry alive during a very difficult period and has thus made a valuable contribution to exports. If that is the policy of the Government, then changes such as that announced in this Order will be of relatively minor character because we shall have a position in which the film industry, which has contributed much to our country, not only culturally and artistically but in terms of the balance of payments, will gradually run down.
I hope, therefore, that the Chair will be as kind to the hon. Gentleman as it has been to me when he comes to reply and will allow him to widen the debate, because he certainly should give some explanation of the more drastic change of policy which he has hitherto avoided dealing with in the House. There is a state of considerable alarm in the British film industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try tonight to do something to put at rest the worst fears which he has aroused since he became responsible for expressing Government policy towards the industry.

Mr. Ridley: By leave of the House, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) rightly considered that the yardstick for this change should be whether it is good for the industry. What is good for the industry is what is good for the industry's customers, the cinemagoers, and the ultimate test of whether a policy of protection for the British film production industry is correctly ordered is whether it can secure maximum audiences and thus maximum size and maximum employment against its many dominant competitors, such as television and other forms of entertainment.
In considering whether the exemption limit should be raised, therefore, the first


consideration is whether leaving the exemption limits at the present £400 level will cause some cinemas to close, which will be bad not only for the industry, but, equally important, for the cinema-goers. It will, of course, result in a loss of revenue to the industry.
It was for these reasons that the C.F.C. thought that an increase in the exemption limit of the levy would benefit the industry as a whole. This was a unanimous decision by the Council, although it disputed other suggestions and has not passed them on to me. Therefore, if the whole industry is in favour of the change, it is likely to be right.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what was the rate of closure of cinemas and whether it would be changed by the Order. I confirm his figure, that cinemas have been closing at the rate of about 100 a year. We expect that the Order will mean that fewer cinemas will close in future than would otherwise have been the case. But it would be rash, indeed almost impossible, to forecast numbers, because this depends on the quality of films and the habits of cinemagoers. Indeed, I have never seen a figure that I could suggest to the House.
It is also hard to say how many cinemas the Order will free from paying the levy. This also depends on how many people go to the marginal cinemas in small towns, and that is impossible to estimate. But the effect on the levy is estimated to be small.
In 1964–65 the yield of the levy was about £4·6 million. Following the changes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it fell to about £4 million in 1968–69. It has been growing since then, and if no change is made during the current year, we expect it will yield about £4½ million. That is getting near the statutory ceiling of £5 million, and it is likely that this change in the levy will reduce it by—to quote one estimate I have heard—about £76,000, which is tiny compared to the yield. Therefore, I think it will have hardly any effect upon the amount of money which is available to come back to the producers, because the levy is growing not much more slowly than the reduction which the Order will cause.
We have no plans for altering the distribution pattern. It will always be this Government's intention to consult the C.F.C. on matters to do with the levy. We have had the annual consideration of this for this year and I would expect that we would wait for another year before we considered any changes. But, of course, it is possible that circumstances will change rapidly, and I would not preclude the possibility of looking at it again in a year if circumstances are different.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) favoured the idea of trying to use the levy to keep this country's film industry as large as possible. If the levy is too high on cinema seats, on which it is paid, it will have the effect of frightening off the audience, who might find some cheaper form of entertainment, and that could positively damage the interests of the industry as a whole. So we have to find the right balance between the reasonably priced seat and the need to collect some levy to recycle into the industry.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman seem to think that there is some crisis of confidence in the industry. I do not believe that this is so. If it is, then I do not believe that it is justified. There has indeed been a slight increase in the number of films produced in this country, and prospects are by no means as black as they have at times been in the past. It is always difficult to gauge in an industry which is declining year after year due to losing business to other forms of entertainment, but I see nothing in the present situation which would justify the pessimism and gloom which came from the other side of the House.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman seem to think that the remarkable opportunity which has been given to the National Film Finance Corporation to help the industry is in some way not in its favour. The Opposition are totally wrong about this. Surely, to have a sum, which we hope will reach a total of £4 million, available for financing films is a shot in the arm, not a stab in the back. It seems extraordinary that this should be misrepresented as something which will


damage the industry. Indeed, if the total is raised, the N.F.F.C. will have more money than had it drawn the last remaining amount in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman put through Parliament last year. I do not think that the Opposition's argument will stand up.
I think the whole House will be delighted if the consortium comes into existence and its money comes not from the taxpayer or from the State but from the private sector.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Labour Government made available a sum of up to £5 million and that what he is putting forward as an improvement is the decision on his part to make £1 million of that available, and that in itself subject to a condition which did not exist under the previous Administration? Therefore, so far from being, as it were, a kindly uncle, he is regarded in the industry as something in the nature of an ogre.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is regarded not only in the industry but in this House as somebody who does not do his homework. He should realise that the N.F.F.C. had £1½ million before the consortium came into existence, that it can get up to £1 million from the Government for the formation of the consortium, and that we have also guaranteed £700,000 worth of existing moral commitments for the future. That, if the hon. Gentleman can add, is £3.2 million out of the £5 million which the Labour Government voted the N.F.F.C. to last for 10 years. If that is not generous—perhaps too general—use of the taxpayers' money, I do not know what is.
The hon. Gentleman must also do his homework on the setting up of the N.F.F.C. He will recall that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition set up the N.F.F.C. in 1948 and issued a stern warning that it was to be an existence for only five years, after which time the film industry had to get its money from commercial sources as there would be no question of continuing its life thereafter. If I am accused of being a philistine, what the hon. Gentleman must think about the Leader of the Opposition I do not know. Perhaps he would care to read the debate when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the N.F.F.C. some time ago.
I do not believe that the industry has anything to fear. The happy marriage of public and private finance in the N.F.F.C. gives it a glorious opportunity to accustom private finance to investing in films and, I hope, make money in the process. I am sure that the House wishes the consortium well.
I believe that this small change in the levy regulations will keep open some cinemas which might not otherwise survive. I believe, too, that it will not affect production, because only a small amount of money is involved. This is what the industry wants. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be so suspicious or unhappy about something which has been brought forward at the request of the industry, and which I confidently believe will be to its benefit.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

P.A.Y.E. CENTRES (INQUIRY FACILITIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment this important question of free telephone access by taxpayers to the centres which deal with their tax affairs.
May I start by expressing the appreciation of hon. Members of the work done by tax officials. We are not critical of the officials. I understand that the amount of work with which they have to cope and the small number of officials available to do it result in massive problems for them.
Nor do we criticise the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I understand that the hon. Gentleman writes to hon. Members at the rate of about 7,000 letters a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be adding to that total. So that is quite a prodigious output.
Tax centres collectively deal with about 3 tons of mail per week, and as many of the letters represent complaints, we in no way minimise the job that the tax officials are doing, but that is not the issue that I want to raise tonight. The issue that I want to raise is the complaint by taxpayers that they feel frustrated when they try to get their problems resolved.
Our whole tax system is in the process of being computerised, and this must, of necessity, mean the concentration of tax offices into about seven or eight centres where computers will be used and the relevant files stored. I understand that a centre like the one at East Kilbride will deal with the affairs of about 3 million taxpayers. One can appreciate, therefore, that many problems are likely to arise, and my remarks tonight are directed at an attempt to find a solution to some of the difficulties that may be encountered. I have discussed the East Kilbride centre with my colleagues from Scotland, and they have expressed their appreciation of the service that they get from it.
I understand that on 7th December the Minister referred to bus loads of taxpayers travelling the 12 miles from Glasgow to East Kilbride and being met by an army of officials, merely because they were not able to find an easy way of communicating with the tax centre, either by telephone, or through the local inquiry office that had been set up in Glasgow.
One can readily understand from that the problems which exist all over the country. For every taxpayer who would have to travel 12 miles, there are many others who would have to travel a much greater distance in order to speak to someone who has the relevant papers and can discuss problems with individual tax payers. I understand, for example, that the centres dealing with P.A.Y.E. for the whole of the South-East, including London, are scattered anywhere between Southampton and Edinburgh.
From those facts, one can appreciate that communications are very important. If we are to avoid the recurring frustration which is expressed by many infuriated taxpayers, a scheme must be devised which gives them access to their tax officials either by means of a free

telephone service or by some other method which is cheap, effective and efficient, so that they may get simple answers to what are very often simple problems.
My attention has been drawn to the difficulties involved by trade unionists who complained to their trade union branches that they found it increasingly difficult to get answers to coding problems. That is the main area in which I am concerned, and I am advocating some sort of free telephone access to the computer centres with a view to finding a solution to these simple coding problems.
A worker may change his job, or there may be some adjustment necessary in his claim for allowances. Often he ends up being given an emergency code number. For a short time, or what is supposed to be a short time, he is paying excessive tax which frequently he can ill afford. It imposes a great strain on his family. The process of writing letters to a far-distant tax centre often involves the taxpayer in a wait of many weeks before he gets a reply. Even then it may not give him the code number to which he is entitled.
We know of the demands from many taxpayers for a better system. As Members of Parliament, we are concerned to ensure that the advantages of computerising the tax system are not dissipated by the creation of some far-off bureaucracy which denies taxpayers the right of access to those who are dealing with their affairs. We have discussed many of these difficulties in previous debates. To cut a long story short, perhaps I might quote from some documents recording the discussions which have been held.
The first of them is the Report of the 1968–69 Estimates Committee. Paragraph 62 recommends :
The Chief Inspector of Taxes stated in relation to the P.A.Y.E. centres that 'employers are provided with free telephone access direct to the computer centre. We shall try to encourage the taxpayer to write wherever possible'. Your Committee recommend that facilities for free telephone access to the P.A.Y.E. centres should be made available to all taxpayers, with a view to saving time and improving understanding.
That was a clear recommendation. It was put before various Treasury Ministers in the last Government. It was also submitted to the working party which had been set up and which has been trying


since to come to some conclusion as to how best to overcome all these problems.
Going back a little further, I refer to a book which was published in 1965 by Sir Alexander Johnston, the head of the Inland Revenue. At that time, he was under the impression that special telephone facilities had been provided to enable employers and employees to get in touch with the "London provincial" offices. In the same book he went on to outline the possibility of providing similar facilities for all taxpayers throughout the country. Indeed, from a reading of that book one would gain the impression that Sir Alexander Johnston was convinced—as I was as a result of my own inquiries—that these facilities existed for everyone.
On 7th December, 1970, the Minister seemed to confirm that impression. I do not wish to misrepresent what he said, so I shall quote his words :
But we always recognised that remoteness was a major disadvantage of computerisation, and the Inland Revenue has now for some time had a working party looking into the whole question of P.A.Y.E. inquiry facilities, the adequacy of existing arrangements, whether proper publicity is being given to them and whether improvements are necessary.
In response to some pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the hon. Gentleman added :
He"—
that is, my hon. Friend—
will know that when the first tax districts, dealing with taxpayers in London, moved out of London to the provinces the Inland Revenue initially made use of the free phone facility. The difficulty with this facility was that it proved to be very expensive even when available only to employers. The hon. Gentleman asked also about abuse of the facility. Although the abuse was not great, and I would not seek to put much weight on it, there were employees who learned the number and were thus able to make free telephone calls themselves to which they were not entitled, although they were entitled to make calls for the cost of a local call.
That has been the story, repeated by Ministers at various times, and certainly confirmed by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor to me when I made inquiries. I understood that all taxpayers in the country had a right to telephone their tax centre for the cost of a local call, whether they lived in London and the South-East and they were ringing Edin-

burgh, Manchester, Newcastle, or wherever it might be.
In the same speech on 7th December the hon. Gentleman said :
As we see this concentration develop, the cost of a free phone service could become very considerable, and I will only say now that the working party will give very close consideration to what the Select Committee recommended. We are anxious that taxpayers should have all reasonable facilities for making contact with the computer centre, but this must have some regard to the cost."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1970 ; Vol. 808, c. 128.]
Basically, that is the case which I am making. What progress has been made in looking into this question? Are we any further towards providing the kind of facilities which were recommended?
Judging from conversations which I have had with colleagues in the House, I should say that the majority opinion of hon. Members is that these free telephone facilities should be given to all taxpayers. I am certain that a simple scheme could be devised. I have spoken to telephone engineers, and they see no difficulty which cannot be overcome, except, perhaps, the problem of cost. They see no difficulty which would prevent an arrangement whereby a local telephone number was made known so that taxpayers anywhere in the country could ring that number and be put through on a direct link to the computer centre dealing with their affairs. That does not seem an insuperable problem in our modern age. There are other methods for doing it.
Why are the Government so complacent about this problem? What have they done in the meantime? Have they tried to accelerate the work of the working party to make some recommendations so that taxpayers can have this facility? What has happened since the working party started to consider the problem? What conclusions has it reached? Can the hon. Gentleman offer taxpayers a way to solve their problems by giving them easy access to those dealing with their tax troubles?

11.5 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): May I begin by expressing my thanks to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for the tribute he paid to the officials of the Inland Revenue who run our tax


system. It was very well deserved, because, as I said in the debate on 7th December last year, the House has imposed major burdens on the Inland Revenue, and its staff grapple with them manfully.
This debate has been well-timed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter tonight, for our short debate gives me the opportunity to tell the House of the results of the Inland Revenue working party to which he referred and which I spoke about briefly in the debate on 7th December. It has been looking into the whole question of P.A.Y.E. inquiry facilities, the adequacy of existing arrangements and the publicity about them, and whether improvements are necessary.
There is no doubt, as the hon. Gentleman rightly recognised, of the problems caused by the decentralisation of tax offices out of London and one or two other major cities, part of the Government's dispersal policy which started in 1959 in relation to tax offices and what was intended as the concentration into new P.A.Y.E. computer centres—the programme has been suspended for the time being pending the inquiry into the future of the whole P.A.Y.E. system. Both these developments greatly increased the problems of communication between taxpayers and the offices responsible for their affairs. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will know that we dealt with this at considerable length on 7th December in connection with East Kilbride. Although in that debate I referred briefly to the history of the dispersal and to the arrangements made to ensure that taxpayers continue to receive a satisfactory local service, it may be helpful if I briefly touch on the main facts again.
When the P.A.Y.E. work was first moved out of London to the new London provincial tax offices—the first phase was 1959–62—it was felt right to offer what would perhaps now be regarded as a fully gold-plated service. It was thought right to provide employers with entirely free telephone access to the provincial districts and to allow their employees to telephone those offices for the cost of a local call. The provision of free telephone calls for employers was thus extended to cover successively London provincial dis-

tricts 1–11. But, unhappily, those facilities turned out to be far more expensive than had been estimated, and it was decided that for subsequent London provincial districts no special telephone facilities could be provided and that the right answer was to establish local inquiry offices in London to which taxpayers and their employers could refer their inquiries.
For employees the out-of-area local code call facilities, as the service was called, also proved very costly and was curtailed. It remains today—and this is where some confusion has arisen—only for two of the London provincial districts, London provincial 2 at Manchester, and London provincial 3 at Bradford. In the case of all other London provincial districts there are no facilities for calls at local call charges.
The Inland Revenue decided instead that a satisfactory service at a substantially reduced cost could be provided for taxpayers if special inquiry offices were set up in the London area. There are principal inquiry offices in London which are linked by Telex to the majority of the London provincial districts. Those offices are in Finsbury Square and Baker Street. They can obtain a reply very quickly to pass on to the taxpayer if he telephones that inquiry office in London or calls to make a personal visit. In addition, there are some 12 or 13 London tax districts which serve as district inquiry offices for their locality.
In regard to Scotland where the first and, so far, the only operating computing centre is working, at East Kilbride, similar arrangements were made. Principal inquiry offices have been set up in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which are linked to Centre 1 by Telex. In addition, a further 28 other inquiry offices have been set up in existing tax offices all over Scotland. At these offices advice and general explanations about codings and assessment notices can be given and forms for claiming allowances obtained. That is the present position.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the light of the Scottish experiment, would the hon. Gentleman recommend the extension of this system to other parts of the country and does he consider it reasonably satisfactory?

Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to that. I turn now to the result of the working


party to which I referred briefly before the hon. Member for West Lothian came into the Chamber. The hon. Member for Tottenham suggested that taxpayers could telephone their local inquiry offices and be put through direct to the London provincial district or to the centre which deals with their affairs. This is not the case. It is only in the case of two particular London provincial districts that the original cheap telephone facility introduced in the early years still obtains. We are still studying whether that facility should continue.
For many taxpayers by far the most satisfactory way of dealing with their tax complaints is by a face-to-face inquiry. Increasingly it has been found that the most satisfactory method, if the taxpayer's file is needed, is for him to give a local inquiry office a few days' notice, the office acquires the file from the relevant tax office, and an official from the local inquiry office can discuss the person's affairs with the papers before them. There is some evidence to suggest that a telephone call for an ordinary taxpayer—and many people find an understanding of the tax system difficult—when the official and the taxpayer may not have before them the same document often increases problems rather than diminishes them.
At present there are no means by which the inquiry office can transfer a call from a taxpayer to another office, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the recommendation of the Fifth Report of the Select Comittee on Estimates that free telephone access should be available to all taxpayers. This was dealt with in the observations of the then Chancellor the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins).
For the reasons I have explained, in view of the extensive and growing provision of local access by means of inquiry offices, it was considered that further provision of free telephone facilities was not necessary and that the cost could not be justified. However, as I told the House on 7th December, this was reviewed by an Inland Revenue working party which looked at the whole question of the adequacy of P.A.Y.E. inquiry facilities.
It made a comprehensive review of the arrangements and looked again at the

case for reintroducing free or subsidised telephone access to the London provincial districts and the computer centres. There was a clear recognition in the report that further improvements were needed, but it found that the cost of a free or subsidised telephone service would be very heavy indeed, probably running into several million pounds.

Mr. Atkinson: Would the hon Gentleman repeat that figure?

Mr. Jenkin: Several million pounds. I pressed the officials of the Inland Revenue on this and they assured me that their studies showed that if these facilities were available and were to be regarded as the principal or substantial avenue of contact between the taxpayer and the district offices out of London, the cost would run into several million pounds.
It also found from a survey of callers at a number of offices that nearly 80 per cent. of all inquiries could be dealt with satisfactorily without recourse to the taxpayer's file. All he wants is a form on which to report a child being born, or that he has got married and that he is claiming marriage allowance, or that he has changed his job. His file is not needed for that and the inquiry office can give him the form and he can send it to the tax office. Furthermore, many of the taxpayers who need the greatest help understand tax affairs better if they had a face-to-face contact rather than trying to do it by telephone. Therefore, whether or not one has a free phone arrangement, local inquiry offices would still be necessary to deal with that kind of case.
The working party also had regard to the need for security, and the hon. Gentleman will see the significance of this in view of recent revelations about the ease with which the telephone may be used to get details of an individual taxpayer's affairs. Internally the Revenue now has what it hopes are nearly watertight procedures, but if there were to be large numbers, tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of calls a year, the dangers to security would be obviously considerable. Therefore, what the working party recommended as the right course was to develop and improve the system of local inquiry offices and not to introduce free telephone access.
Hon. Members will be glad to learn that we have accepted the recommendation to improve and extend the whole system of P.A.Y.E. inquiry offices where the work is removed to a remote office either as the result of dispersal, or because of the computer programme. The number of specialised principal inquiry offices is to be increased, and staff will be specially trained. They will come under direct head office control. We shall concentrate first on the London area, where two extra principal inquiry offices are already being set up in Victoria and Soho, and on Scotland. We are also considering extending Telex to other inquiry offices. Our aim is to encourage both staff and taxpayers to regard the P.A.Y.E. inquiry offices as places where the great majority of their inquiries may be dealt with speedily and satisfactorily
I know that there will be some disappointment where people have been led to expect and hope that there would be a free telephone service but I have little

doubt that as a result of our further study a full service will be secured when we have established these further local inquiry offices not only in London but eventually in other parts of the country where the tax office dealing with a taxpayer's affairs is remote from the area where he lives or works. This will encourage people to meet their tax officer face to face with papers in front of them, and when explanation and understanding are necessary, experience shows that this is the most satisfactory way to get them.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this subject and giving me the opportunity to give this explanation, and I hope that it will be an encouragement to those taxpayers now finding it difficult sometimes to achieve the right sort of contact with their tax officer, and give them hope that help is on the way.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.